On the occasion
of this historic final session of the General Assembly of the
current millennium, which is my first, as I took office in
May this year, I extend, on behalf of the people of Djibouti,
our sincere best wishes to all the members of the Assembly.
I should also like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election
to the presidency of the General Assembly at this fifty-
fourth session. Your long and extensive experience with the
United Nations, beginning as the representative of the
South-West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) before
your country's independence and continuing as its
Permanent Observer, has afforded you a deep insight into
the internal workings of the Assembly, and the challenges
it now faces. We are convinced that, thanks to your ample
skills and commitment, this session of the Assembly will
bring a remarkable period to a close on a very positive
note.
We also wish to express our gratitude to your
predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti of Uruguay, for the
exemplary manner in which he conducted the work of the
General Assembly. The fact that the Assembly was able
to accomplish so much at its fifty-third session was in
great measure due to his dedication, skill and intelligent
management.
We must also acknowledge our great admiration for
the tireless efforts of the Secretary-General in continuing
his exemplary work under difficult and trying
circumstances. On too many fronts the Organization has
been facing challenges which jeopardize its proper
functioning, whether dealing with issues of peace and
conflict, development, or addressing the severe poverty
faced by many in the world community. Despite a sharp
reduction in the inflow of funds at a time of escalating
demands on the Organization, the Secretary-General has
succeeded in maintaining a high degree of effectiveness
through intelligent rationalization and restructuring. The
Organization is therefore continuing to play an important
role in world affairs, which is in no small measure
attributable to the enlightened leadership of the Secretary-
General.
As this millennium draws to a close, we find
ourselves in a post-cold-war era of globalism. The
doctrine that the general pursuit of economic and financial
prosperity will necessarily lead to open markets, greater

international movement of resources, capital and labour is
deeply entrenched. As we progress, it is claimed, this global
system will produce freer societies and expanding middle
classes, which, in turn, will exert pressure for political
freedoms. In the end, it is also claimed, we can all expect
the spread of peace as countries become more
interdependent and economically integrated, for free
societies do not go to war, at least with each other.
This model calls for the ascendancy of a more
efficient private sector and a reduced role for government.
For developing countries, the pursuit of maximum
economic flexibility has been accompanied by a massive
reorganization of legal, social, financial, economic, political
and institutional structures — or, as it is known, structural
adjustment. The cost of these changes has been
considerable, not only in financial terms, but also in human
and social terms as well. As the social safety net in many
countries consists of government jobs and services,
downsizing government has meant considerable suffering,
and often with a political price to be paid.
Thanks to the spread of technology, particularly in the
communications sector, it is now possible for companies
and organizations to operate on a global scale and to enter
virtually any local market of their choosing. Consequently,
economic domination has shifted to the large, transnational
corporations and financial conglomerates, which are
increasingly the prime movers in most economic systems.
Predictably, the poor and unprepared are increasingly
isolated and marginalized. It is therefore not surprising that
there is a mounting and widespread backlash against the
destructive effects of this global juggernaut.
The old market economy system following the Second
World War — the Marshall Plan era — survived because
there were few persistent losers. Everyone got something
from the system and could claim ownership. We cannot say
that today, for the roster of losers is mounting ominously.
This is a distressing omen for the new millennium, made all
the more tragic and infuriating because of the abundance of
possible remedies. We can make the system work
effectively and beneficially if the will is there. But at
present the international community lacks determination and
a sense of compassion. That does not bode well for
mankind.
Globalization and the rapid expansion and integration
of the international economy have undoubtedly brought
immense benefits to many countries and positive changes
in the living conditions of many individuals. However,
many countries and their populations, particularly in the
developing world, are increasingly facing marginalization
and hopelessness because they are not able to cope with
the rapid pace of integration. The least developed
countries in particular require special attention so that
they do not slip further into the abyss of poverty and
disintegration.
Clearly, the Horn of Africa has had far more than its
share of wars, natural disasters, collapsing States,
economic decline and wasted national and human
potential. For Djibouti, survival alone has consistently
presented an enormous challenge. However, our nation
today is stronger and more unified than ever before. We
owe this to the wisdom, perseverance and foresight of our
first President and father of the nation, my mentor, The
Honourable Hassan Gouled Aptidon, who voluntarily
retired a few months ago — a praiseworthy decision. He
forged a nation and gave it purpose and strength. His
enlightened leadership enabled us to remain at peace,
while sensitive to our region's difficulties and needs. I am
proud to follow in the footsteps of this great soul, and I
am determined to safeguard his legacy and our democratic
traditions and institutions.
Djibouti will continue to work for good governance,
democracy and independence, with respect for human
rights. We will continue, true to our cultural heritage, to
give sanctuary to people displaced by conflicts in our
region, despite the severe strain this puts on our meagre
resources.
Africa has many hopeful spots, but there remain a
number of disturbing conflicts involving nations, countless
rebel and separatist movements and factions. Democratic
elections took place a few months ago in two major
States of sub-Saharan Africa — Nigeria and South
Africa — and in smaller ones, such as Djibouti, while in
most of the major conflicts ravaging the continent
ceasefires or peace processes are under way.
In looking over these developments, what can we
reasonably expect? What must we strive to bring about?
Our first priority must be to bring conflict and destruction
to an end. That is why ceasefires, the withdrawal of
combatants, disarmament, the settlement of conflicts, and
the resettlement of displaced persons are important
priorities for Africa.
As conflicts rage in the heart of the continent, a
dangerous new tendency has begun to appear. Conflicts
are no longer localized or fought between two clear
adversaries, but attract a growing legion of participants
2

with divergent agendas. It is depressing to witness the
massive loss of life, the wanton destruction and the virtual
collapse of societies.
We are therefore relieved that the brutal conflict in
Sierra Leone is at last resolved. Besides Somalia, perhaps
the most worrying conflict now is Angola, where again
outside actors appear to be playing significant roles.
We therefore naturally support the call of the
Secretary-General, who in his report on conflict in Africa
called for a reversal of the international community's great
reluctance in recent years to assume the political and
financial responsibilities associated with deploying
peacekeeping operations.
We must also do everything we can to augment the
United Nations capacity in humanitarian assistance, as well
as in post-conflict peace-building.
None of this, though, should absolve Africa of the
need to come together to strengthen its own crisis response
and peacekeeping capability, through the Organization of
African Unity (OAU) and subregional organizations.
Last year, in his address to this Assembly, my
predecessor noted the sudden and surprising outbreak of
massive hostilities between our neighbours, Ethiopia and
Eritrea. This has been the cause of much anguish,
apprehension and instability in the Horn of Africa. The loss
of life on both sides is among the greatest ever witnessed
between African States. Persistent efforts by the OAU and
various countries, including Djibouti, have proved to be in
vain. Ethiopia is presently seeking further clarification on
the “technical arrangements” proposed by the OAU, and we
hope that the ongoing efforts will produce the desired
breakthrough. If a ceasefire does not take effect and
agreement is not reached, the destruction and further loss of
life will once again be deplorable. Years will be needed to
repair the damage done to ethnic tolerance and trust in the
Horn of Africa. We therefore support the OAU, which is
demonstrating its tenacity and foresight in trying to bring
about a lasting resolution of this crisis.
Clearly, Eritrea needs to be a good neighbour to all its
neighbours. Djibouti is now facing a relentless threat of
destabilization through incursions and landmines, as well as
the training and arming of disaffected elements. Rather than
being confined to Ethiopia, hostilities have spread to
practically every country in the Horn. We sincerely believe
that Eritrea would gain more as an equal partner in the
collective regional efforts to fashion a comprehensive
peace, augment development and address the challenges
of environmental degradation, rather than pursuing a
policy of confrontation and senseless and reckless
destabilization.
The renewed dialogue between the Palestinians and
the new Israeli leader appears to offer a promising
opportunity for charting a new course in the Middle East.
The most urgent need is to restore confidence — a task
that will involve winning over the hearts and minds of
Palestinians jaded by the cynicism of successive Israeli
Governments. The timely implementation of the
provisions of the recent agreement should help build the
necessary confidence by making the parties see reason.
Advantage must be taken of the current momentum,
despite the efforts of hostile factions.
Now that a time-table has been set for the
consideration of final-status issues such as borders,
settlements, the status of Jerusalem, refugees, water and
statehood for Palestine, the outcome will depend on the
will and commitment of both sides. The road should also
be cleared for a settlement of the Golan Heights question
and for the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, in
accordance with Security Council resolution 425 (1978).
The crippling sanctions imposed on Iraq almost a
decade ago have taken a heavy toll on the population,
particularly on the elderly, women and children. We urge
the international community to undertake a realistic
review of these sanctions with a view to lifting them
altogether.
The Arab world and the world as a whole have
recently lost several remarkable and pragmatic leaders.
King Hussein of Jordan, the Amir of Bahrain and King
Hassan II of Morocco are no longer with us. Although we
all feel a sense of loss at their premature demise, we have
every confidence their legacies will live on.
Mr. President, I beg your indulgence, as I would
now like to speak at length about the tragedy in Somalia.
For nearly a decade now we have been witnessing the
inexorable disintegration of Somalia. With their country
racked by violence and lacking a government, the Somali
people are being denied their basic human rights. It is
imperative that every effort be made to alleviate the
suffering of the millions of Somalis who have been living
a precarious existence for a decade now. Housing and
water are alarmingly scarce. Rampant lawlessness
prevails, the country is at a political impasse, and its
future is bleak. If no concrete steps are taken, the result
3

will be continued misery and despair, as well as the
continued destabilization of Somalia's neighbours.
This unique situation, I would even say this tragedy,
ought to be given priority — the kind of serious
consideration that is given to other tragedies. We strongly
believe that international and regional stability depend to a
large extent on the domestic stability of all of the States
Members of this Organization.
It is tragic indeed that the international community is
unwilling to acknowledge this reality, simply because, it
seems, it has no vital national interests at stake there. So
the warlords are left to fight it out until a victor emerges
and a degree of order is restored. Political will on the part
of the international community can bring peace to Somalia,
too.
Because of pervasive indifference and a lack of
resolve, vision and action on our part, Somalia is
crumbling. It is no longer a politically viable entity. Indeed,
the continued anarchy in that country is indicative of the
failure of global governance to serve poor countries in the
developing world. The Somali people know that only too
well. A decade of violence, hunger, disease and uncertainty
has given rise to unparalleled levels of despair. All Somalis,
it is safe to say, are living below the poverty line, and the
devastating civil war shows no signs of abating in most
parts of the country. Somalia could easily become a magnet
for criminal elements, drug traffickers and terrorists as well
as a dumping ground of dangerous toxic wastes.
Overfishing by foreigners of Somalia's unprotected waters
is also a cause of great concern to us.
The latest comprehensive report of the Secretary-
General on Somalia accurately notes that the country has
degenerated into a black hole of anarchy, with no national
government or attributes of statehood. The principal victims
of this senseless conflict are an entire generation of Somali
children, who are being denied access to education.
The United Nations intervened in Somalia in 1992
with all the right intentions: to restore peace, stability, and
law and order. In this respect, it was entrusted with
assisting the Somali people in rebuilding their economy and
their social and political life; restoring their institutional
structures; achieving national political reconciliation; and
recreating a Somali state based on democratic governance.
Regrettably, those laudable intentions came to naught
following the termination of the United Nations Operation
in Somalia, due to the lack of cooperation from the Somali
factions over security issues, and despite the exceptional
circumstances, in particular the absence of a government
in Somalia.
Since the end of the United Nations operation, two
conferences have given rise to a certain optimism — the
Ethiopian-sponsored Sodere conference and the Cairo
conference, sponsored by the Egyptian Government.
However, both conferences succeeded only in highlighting
the divisions among the warlords on the one hand and the
interested countries on the other.
Several countries and organizations have worked
tirelessly to restore some measure of governance in
Somalia. The focus, though, has always remained on
bringing together the feuding warlords in order to assist
them in reaching an agreement that would end the
stalemate. But seeking a lasting settlement through the
warlords, as has repeatedly and unambiguously been
demonstrated throughout the conflict, has proved to be
wishful thinking; uncertainty reigns, and the culture of
impunity persists. Lately, we have seen the formation of
all sorts of political and military alliances across factional
lines in a bid to pacify the country, but such initiatives
are often greeted with scepticism or even criticism by
other factions and even by certain countries. Clearly, not
a single factional leader can claim national support or
acceptance, because Somali civil society has grown
cynical about a political game devoid of sincerity, vision
and substance.
Everybody agrees in recognizing that the warlords
can offer nothing that would lead us to believe that they
will ever agree on a lasting settlement, much less the
implementation of conclusions agreed between them. The
people are tired of false rhetoric and deception, as they
become poorer and their future becomes bleaker every
day. Even beyond Somalia, the warlords pose a potential
threat. They need to be resisted, for there is the very real
problem of a “contagion” effect, whereby chronic
instability in one country in the Horn might prove to be
a real threat to its neighbours, if it is not contained or
eliminated within a reasonable period of time.
Liberia’s seven-year war, with its child soldiers and
unspeakable atrocities against civilians, helped set a tragic
pattern that was repeated in Sierra Leone. Obviously,
already inundated with weapons, Somalia hardly needs
external involvement by way of arms supplies or proxy
confrontations, but that is precisely what is now taking
place in that country. For all of us, this situation only
increases our worry about Somalia’s future.
4

The challenge that we now face is therefore of
establishing an authority to fill the void that is continuously
being exploited by the warlords. Convening more
conferences that always yield the same results, as has been
the case over the last 10 years is not the remedy. If we
continue to entertain the notion of holding yet more of the
so-called national reconciliation conferences indefinitely, or
into the next decade, in search of peace in Somalia, then
we are, in effect, saying that Somali civil society is
condemned to an uncertain future, because the international
community is not prepared to protect it from criminal
elements that usurped power. Despite the “legitimacy”
wrongly accorded them by the international community,
they have never agreed, and will never agree, on anything.
Trying to appease the warlords has never succeeded and
never will.
The Somalis, too, have human rights; they have the
same right as others to be protected from oppressive,
malicious and power-hungry individuals who continually
and freely move from one capital to another, raising funds
and securing armaments. Although these individuals are
responsible for the destruction of their country, for the
deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, countless
numbers of casualties and for the paralysis that immobilizes
the country to this day, the international community did not
intervene in Somalia, “to defend humanitarian principles
and to stand up for the values of civilization and justice”,
as one Western leader stated in justifying the Kosovo
operation. The United Nations Operation in Somalia was
also saddled with ambiguities in its mandate and there was
never an intention to rid the country of the warlords.
Furthermore, Kosovo represents a clear case of
determined and vigorous action to achieve a specific
objective — to drive the marauding Serb army from
Kosovo. Furthermore, the United Nations operation in
Kosovo is vested with unprecedented power, because the
circumstances warrant the exercise of nearly sovereign
powers. It has authority over the territory, the people of
Kosovo, the legislative and the executive powers of
Kosovo, including the administration of the judiciary
system. That mandate is a far cry from that in Somalia; but
then Somalia is not Kosovo.
We all agree that the current level of fragmentation
cannot be allowed to continue. Many ideas have been
floated in the past, but none of these will succeed or even
survive as long as the warlords have the luxury of
determining the fate of Somalia. Indeed, they continue to
exercise a veto over the restoration of peace and national
authority. The question remains, for how many more years
will Somali society have to wait until the warlords accept
a power-sharing coalition? Until a final victor emerges?
For ever?
Liberia was reconstituted through strong international
efforts. Warlords of varying levels of power and support
eventually submitted to international pressures and
accepted independent, internationally supervised
democratic elections, followed by the implementation of
agreements during a year of transition carried out under
the leadership of an individual — in fact, a woman — not
affiliated with any of the warlords. The elections were
described as “free and fair”, and Liberians were thus able
to bid farewell at last to a destructive and intractable
conflict. This was indeed an exemplary process in which
the Economic Community of West African States,
supported by the United Nations, played a leading role.
Since the outbreak of the Somali crisis some 10
years ago, the United Nations, the Organization of
African Unity, the League of Arab States, the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development and our
subregional organization, as well as many countries, both
within and outside the region, have tried to salvage that
nation from mayhem, anarchy and political paralysis
through all kinds of conferences, meetings and contacts
with and among the warlords. Sadly, however, the
warlords have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness
to heed the international community’s call to put the good
of the country above their individual lust for power and
control.
We have to ask ourselves, as leaders of the world
assembled here, what should be done about Somalia. The
time has come, in our view, for the international
community to take a decision to break the long silence on
this forgotten conflict by supporting bold, decisive
measures against the warlords.
That is why, after deep reflection and after taking
into account all relevant factors, I felt compelled to set
out before the Assembly today a series of proposals and
phased measures that would be the expression of our
outrage, frustration and impatience with the status quo
perpetuated by the warlords.
The first phase has to do with the fact that the
warlords, as I have described with great sorrow, have
failed on every count during this long, intractable civil
war. Thus, I am loath to support yet another conference
held for these men who have completely lost the
5

confidence of their people. It is time Somali civil society —
including intellectuals, artists and mothers — assumed
responsibility.
The Somali people has matured politically during these
years of suffering and knows what it needs: economic
prosperity and social progress in a context of democracy,
liberty and peace.
In line with the wishes of the Somali people, Djibouti
is embarking upon measures intended; to enhance and
strengthen Somali’s confidence in themselves, in each other
and in their common destiny; to make a real contract of
trust and progress between the actors of economic, social,
cultural and intellectual life; and to implement with
determination, serenity and equity the work of
rehabilitation, political, economic and administrative
normalization and the promotion of the culture of dialogue
between the Somali people in order to create a lasting
environment of dialogue for the emergence of a new
generation of decision makers.
In order for Djibouti to have confidence in the Somali
people’s responsibility for its future, Somali citizens must
finally be given the right to speak out so that they can
restore the essential values of liberty, truth, justice,
responsibility and transparency. By working for and basing
themselves on Somali civil society through the holding of
a genuine reconciliation conference, the representatives of
the Somali people, including the warlords, will be
committing themselves to the path of peace and national
reconciliation.
We seek a Somalia led and governed by the best
people drawn from all generations, in particular people who
inspire confidence because of their commitment to law,
justice, freedom and peace; those who will govern with a
view to fulfilling a mandate that can be withdrawn at any
time in accordance with the requirements of the common
good; those who do not think only of profiting by the
misfortune of their brethren to gain a scrap of power no
matter what the cost to the Somali nation. Somalia needs
those men and women who in spite of everything have
retained their ethical values, the force of their personalities
and their intellectual and spiritual dynamism: free men and
women who are ready to offer their fellow Somalis a
credible way out of their tragedy that will be consistent
with the cultural heritage and collective memory of the
Somali people.
The reconciliation conference must give rise to
agreement and commitment by all Somalis to the following
principles. First, there must be acceptance of the basic
principle that the Somali people is free to exercise its
democratic right to select its own regional and national
leaders in accordance with a time-frame of its own
choosing. Secondly, the warlords must agree to convert
their factions into political parties that can compete in
elections if they choose to do so. Thirdly, the warlords
must agree to the complete and verifiable disarmament of
their fighters. Fourthly, the warlords must submit to the
primacy of law. Fifthly, the warlords must accede to the
international community’s request to participate in the
restoration of normalcy, law and order, and a framework
for governance. And finally, a national police force must
be established, one that will represent the entire Somali
community and that can incorporate the various militias,
which will have the opportunity to participate in it.
Here I should say that some countries in or outside
of the Horn of Africa, which in one way or another are
fueling the conflict in Somalia, must reconsider their
positions. These countries are pursuing narrow national
interests by supporting the profusion of warlords in
various ways, and they are only prolonging the agony and
privation of Somali civil society. I call on all actors in the
civil war to review their priorities with a view to
achieving peace in Somalia. It is time that they controlled
themselves: high time.
When they can agree that the warlords fully support
or accept the parameters of phase one, the Organization
of African Unity (OAU), the United Nations and the
countries of the region must work together to help
Somalia in its transition to democracy. As in Guinea-
Bissau, the United Nations should establish a post-conflict
peace-building office in Somalia to initiate projects in
support of this process, including by coordinating and
monitoring the holding of legislative and presidential
elections.
I turn now to phase two. If the warlords place
insurmountable obstacles on the road to peace, the
international community will have to shoulder its
responsibility and demonstrate robustly that it cannot let
the persecution of Somali civilians continue indefinitely
without taking action. The warlords must in that case be
prosecuted for crimes against humanity: for abuse of
power, especially through the unjustified persecution of
civilians; for flagrant violations of human rights; and for
having caused the collapse of the State and the
destruction of their country. With their unabated violence
and their erratic behaviour, the warlords have stolen the
childhood from Somalia’s young people; they have
6

deprived their nation of hope and of a future; they have
condemned their people to a precarious existence.
Moreover, harsh and targeted punishment must be
meted out to warlords who do not agree to the international
community’s demand that peace and a framework for
governance be restored in Somalia: they must be confined
to their bleak and battered areas; they must be banned from
freely traveling abroad to further their sinister designs; all
foreign support and all assistance, whether monetary or
material, must be banned; and all their assets, in all forms
and wherever they are located, must be frozen.
Turning to phase three, if the measures set out in the
first two phases cannot achieve the objectives because of
obstruction by the warlords, we would be faced with two
difficult choices: We could continue to remain indifferent
and to do nothing about the decade-old siege of Somalia; or
organizations to which Somalia belongs, first and foremost
the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab
States, with support from the United Nations and from
other countries, could decide that they were obliged to
resolve the situation by using all necessary means on the
principle that no State — or criminal warlord in this
case — may continue indefinitely to commit flagrant
violations of human rights and to hold a country hostage
forever.
Those are the critical scenarios we need to discuss,
because, however much one might wish to forget Somalia,
it will not just go away. We must do something to remedy
the situation, and we must do it as quickly as possible.
Let me reiterate that we must put an end to the
complacency we have displayed towards the warlords, and
that Somali civil society must be more closely involved in
any future process.
It is important to note that the situation is not the same
in all regions of the country; anarchy does not prevail
everywhere. Somalia has many contrasting faces depending
on the region. While disorder reigns in areas of the centre
and the South, northern regions such as the self-proclaimed
states of Somaliland and Puntland are enjoying relative
peace and stability. Those two areas fortunately escaped
most of the conflict that ravaged the country in the 1990s.
They have made a great effort to strengthen security and,
with very little outside assistance, have carried out
admittedly limited economic reconstruction programmes.
The international community has thus far been wary of
providing meaningful assistance, on the pretext that the
political and security situation makes it impossible.
As we meet here today, communities in many towns
and regions are organizing to determine their own future.
This trend towards decentralization or self-administration
is based on the strong determination of the Somalis not to
succumb, but rather to survive. The international
community is duty-bound to provide economic support for
these regions and communities that have achieved relative
peace, security and the beginnings of development: near-
normalcy. The international community should reward
those who are trying to provide their people with basic
services, including an institutional framework and mine-
clearance efforts.
I am grateful to the Secretary-General, who has
placed the question of Somalia high on the international
agenda, and to United Nations agencies such as the
United Nations Development Programme, the United
Nations Children’s Fund, the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food
Programme and their partners, who have provided food
and care to the Somali people despite the risks for the
safety of their personnel. But these praiseworthy efforts
seem to be showing some fatigue, even frustration,
because of inadequate support from donors, as reflected
in the lukewarm response to the 1999 United Nations
appeal. We urge the international community to continue
to help the Somali people during these times, which are
particularly difficult due in part to the long drought,
further exacerbated by the ongoing civil war.


There is no doubt that the twentieth century, which is now
coming to a close, will leave a deep imprint on the history
of the world. This has been an epoch of global
transformation and social change, scientific discoveries and
achievements. The realization of the idea of a universal
world Organization, which has become the foundation
uniting the entire international community, has indeed been
one of the positive things about this century.
However, the twentieth century has witnessed the most
severe upheavals. Millions of people have perished in the
flames of world wars, revolutions and civil and ethnic
conflicts. On a few occasions, humanity teetered on the
brink of self-destruction, and the burden of outstanding
problems it has left for the new era is a heavy one. We
cannot resolve all these problems before the advent of the
third millennium, but we are indeed duty bound to lay
down the foundations for resolving them in the long-term
and to start moving in that direction.
The most important thing we should do is to define
the parameters of the world in which we are going to live.
This lies at the core of the initiative put forward by the
President of the Russian Federation, President Yeltsin, to
develop a world concept for the twenty-first century. As a
world Power and permanent member of the Security
Council, Russia is fully conscious of its special role in and
responsibility for world developments and stands for the
establishment of a multipolar world built on a solid
foundation of international law. Our country is pursuing in
practice a multifaceted foreign policy with a view to
establishing equitable and mutually beneficial bilateral and
multilateral relations with all the countries of the world and
to strengthening international security and stability.
The world concept for the twenty-first century
involves establishing a new culture which would aim to
form a common system of values and models of
behaviour. A world without wars and conflict, a world of
democracy and prosperity must be the highest priority for
all peoples and States. Every nation is entitled to its
rightful place among other nations and to security on an
equal footing in all its aspects, including in the political,
military, economic and social areas.
How and through what mechanisms can this be
achieved? Is there a body which can reflect the interests
of all States in a balanced manner? The answer is
obvious: it is the United Nations. From the outset, the
United Nations Charter put the Organization at the service
of all humankind. There is simply no other universal
mechanism to regulate international relations.
We are fully aware of the danger posed by the
threats and challenges facing our world today: the various
manifestations of militant nationalism, separatism,
terrorism and extremism, which know no borders. This is
a common challenge which is claiming countless victims
and wreaking destruction in various parts of the globe.
Aggressive separatism, which has become a growth
medium for various extremist forces, has become one of
the main sources of domestic conflict and regional
instability. No one is immune to it. The international
community and, above all, the United Nations, must
decisively clamp down on any manifestations of
separatism and strictly and consistently defend the
principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
States and the inviolability of their borders. Outside
encouragement and support for separatist forces must be
totally eradicated.
Recently, separatism has been increasingly merging
with the monster of terrorism. We could even now, during
this session, take a number of specific steps to stimulate
practical international cooperation in combating terrorism.
We must finalize the draft international convention on the
suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism. I therefore
suggest that we should develop and adopt a declaration of
principles for cooperation between States on combating
terrorism more vigorously. It is the States’ bounden duty
to protect their citizens against terrorist attacks and to
prevent activities from taking place in their territory that
are aimed at organizing such acts against the citizens of
other countries. Russia therefore supports the initiative to
convene, under United Nations auspices, a conference or
a special session of the General Assembly next year on
13

combating terrorism. Such an event would give a powerful
political impetus to the struggle against terrorism at a global
level.
The capabilities of the United Nations should also be
used more efficiently in the fight against drug-related
threats and organized crime. Only through joint efforts that
are also in strict compliance with the rules of international
law can we defeat this evil.
The founding fathers of the United Nations made
provision for a law-based response to violations of peace
and security. The international community can take also
coercive measures, but this should be done in accordance
with the Charter and following a decision by the Security
Council. Unlawful means can only undermine rightful ends.
It is from this very perspective that we assess such
doctrines as that of humanitarian intervention. In general,
we should take an extremely careful approach to coercive
measures; what is more, we must not allow them to turn
into a repressive mechanism for influencing States and
peoples that are not to the liking of some.
Of course, evolution of the international situation
means that it is appropriate for existing rules of
international law to be developed and adapted to prevailing
conditions, but this should be done through collective
discussion and the adoption of appropriate decisions, not as
a fait accompli and not working from scratch: it should be
based on valid rules of international law. This is precisely
what Russia had in mind with its initiative to consider at
the Millennium Summit legal aspects of the use of force in
international relations in the era of globalization. We invite
all countries to a broad and open dialogue on this issue.
Much has been said in recent years about the reform
of the United Nations, which is only natural. Life is an
evolving process and, as times change, any system will
need to be updated. What objectives future reform should
pursue is another matter. In our view, reform means, first
and foremost, the adoption of a package of measures to
enhance the role of the United Nations in the world arena.
The Organization should be ready to respond in a timely
and appropriate way to the challenges that globalization
presents to mankind. We must give serious thought to how
to enhance the efficiency of the Security Council and how
to make that principal organ of the United Nations more
representative through the inclusion of influential new
members, including — and this is absolutely
indispensable — developing countries. This would help
maintain the overall balance in the system of international
relations, especially when the use of force, bypassing the
Security Council, continues. It is also beyond doubt that
preservation of the right of veto of permanent members
is indispensable for meaningful and efficient work in the
Council.
Generally speaking, the entire system of international
organizations needs sensible and responsible reform. At
the same time, the United Nations must remain a focal
point of the international community’s efforts to settle the
most burning problems of the day. The issue of
strengthening the authority of the United Nations after it
has been seriously and painfully tested by the Balkan and
Iraq crises is at the very top of the agenda at the current
session of the General Assembly. First of all, we must
continue strenuous efforts to restore the role of the
Security Council in world affairs.
We have managed through joint efforts to bring the
settlement of the Kosovo problem back within the legal
and political framework of the United Nations. Now we
need jointly to strive for strict and consistent
implementation of Security Council resolution 1244
(1999). We cannot afford to let the re-emerging political
process be undermined again, since that could become a
tragedy for all of Europe and could once again bring the
world to the brink of catastrophe. Equally urgent is the
issue of post-conflict rehabilitation in the Balkans. The
United Nations has an important role to play in meeting
these challenges as well.
We all should draw serious lessons from recent
crises. Non-legitimate methods of exerting power only
exacerbate problems and result in even greater deadlock.
Developments in the Middle East, where the peace
process has of late acquired a new positive impetus,
clearly exemplify the optimal alternative, that of
negotiated settlement.
Also on the agenda is the issue of improving
sanctions regimes, to which the international community
has frequently resorted over the past decade. Sanctions
are an extreme measure. They must be applied only when
other means of political influence have been exhausted
and when the Security Council has established the
existence of a threat to peace. The Council, for its part,
should be guided by clear criteria for the imposition and
the lifting of sanctions, and should not permit any free
interpretation of the decisions it has adopted, much less
permit the use of its decisions by anyone for selfish
political or economic ends. It is necessary to take very
serious account of the humanitarian implications of
sanctions both for the population of the States subject to
14

such sanctions and for third countries. The punishment of
entire nations, especially for an indefinite time and
indiscriminately, is inadmissible.
Peacemaking is one of the key areas of United Nations
activities. During the past 50 years the Organization has
acquired vast practical experience in this field. Having
successfully survived intense disputes and ideological
battles, peacemaking has proved its vital power and
importance for securing world and regional stability. The
evolution of the theory and practice of present-day
peacemaking confirms that there is no alternative to
maintaining the central role of the United Nations in this
sphere. The encouragement of peacemaking and the
strengthening of its legal basis in strict conformity with the
fundamental principles of the Charter should become an
important component of the concept of the world in the
twenty-first century. Building up and modernizing the anti-
crisis capability of the United Nations is a key prerequisite
for tackling these tasks successfully. The top priority here
is to begin truly using the system of stand-by agreements
with the United Nations.
Taking into account the limited resources of the world
Organization, and given the high demand for peacekeeping
operations, cooperation and division of labour between the
United Nations and regional structures has become a
priority. It is of fundamental importance that such
cooperation should be in strict accordance with Chapter
VIII of the Charter and should be fully consistent with the
prerogatives of the Security Council.
For Russia, the question of peacemaking cooperation
between the United Nations and regional organizations is
far from theoretical. For many years, Russian peacemakers
within the peacekeeping forces of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) have contributed to stabilizing the
situations in Abkhazia, Georgia, in Tajikistan, and in Trans-
Dniestria, Moldova. This testifies to the fact that the
settlement of conflicts within the framework of the CIS is
a priority for Russia. As before, we do not see any
reasonable alternative to political settlement of these crisis
situations, for which political will, patience and
commitment to one’s obligations are needed. We consider
it important for the United Nations to continue to play a
prominent role in finding solutions in Tajikistan and in
Abkhazia, Georgia.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), which is called upon to play a central role
in ensuring European security and stability, can and should
be the main United Nations peacemaking partner in Europe.
When this arrangement fails to work, not only do specific
European countries suffer, but providing for global and
continental security becomes complicated. In a broad
sense, OSCE peacemaking parameters, ranging from
conflict prevention to peacekeeping operations and post-
conflict rehabilitation, should be defined in a charter on
European security. Russia proposes too that the charter
should also reflect such principles important for the future
of Europeans as ensuring the security and the foundations
of the relations between European and Euro-Atlantic
organizations in this area. Then the charter will indeed
become a kind of political constitution for the Europe of
the twenty-first century. As the Istanbul summit of the
OSCE, which is expected to adopt the charter, is
approaching fast, we should press ahead with the
formulation of a substantive document.
The Conference on Interaction and Confidence-
building Measures in Asia may become an important
factor for stability on the Asian continent after the new
positive impetus it received at the recent Almaty Foreign
Affairs Ministers’ Meeting of the founding States. The
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Regional Forum, a venue for active dialogue on a broad
spectrum of urgent international issues, is yet another
example of the focus of the Asian countries on the
formation of solid structures for security and cooperation
on the continent.
It is necessary to enhance the potential of African
regional and subregional organizations, which are acting
in close cooperation with the United Nations to curb and
cope with conflicts and humanitarian catastrophes
emerging in Africa. It is the duty of the international
community to render every possible support to the
African peoples.
While strengthening the legal and practical basis of
peacemaking activities, special attention should be paid to
what is commonly called the human rights dimension.
This relates not only to measures to minimize human
sufferings caused by armed conflicts, but also to efforts
aimed at preventing humanitarian crises.
In this connection, I cannot fail to mention the
unacceptable situation of countless thousands of people in
the centre of Europe who, due to arbitrary actions by
authorities, have found themselves deprived of their
citizenship and of the right to use their native language
and enjoy full rights in their State of residence. Civilized
integration, rather than latent assimilation — this is the
way out of the prevailing humanitarian situation in these
15

countries. We welcome the efforts of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council
of Europe and the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS)
aimed at eliminating violations of human rights and
freedoms of the non-indigenous population of Latvia and
Estonia. We hope that the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights will make her contribution
to these efforts.
The risk of losing positive dynamics in the sphere of
disarmament as a result of attempts to rely on unilateral
power methods cannot but cause concern. If the political
and legal fabric regulating international relations continues
to disintegrate further, then trends to ensure national
security through an arms race will become even stronger.
Russia has consistently advocated the reduction and
limitation of nuclear arsenals and strict compliance with the
non-proliferation regime. For without this, ensuring
strategic stability would prove impossible.
We realize the importance of early ratification of the
START II Treaty and of the initiation of START III
negotiations, under which Russia would be prepared, on a
reciprocal basis, to agree to considerable further reduction
of strategic offensive armaments. Naturally, this process
will be feasible only if the existing agreements in this field,
first of all the ABM Treaty, are strictly observed. We
believe that the General Assembly should come out clearly
in support of the preservation and observance of the ABM
Treaty, which is a cornerstone of strategic stability, because
unilateral actions aimed at undermining the time-tested
regime established by this Treaty are fraught with
extremely dangerous consequences. A collective search for
political and diplomatic solutions is the alternative to
military responses to the problems of proliferation. This is
precisely the target of Russia’s initiative concerning the
global system of control over proliferation of missiles and
missile technologies.
Substantive discussions on threats to international
information security must also be continued within the
framework and under the auspices of the United Nations.
The time has come to reach, through joint efforts, a
common understanding of such threats and of measures to
reduce them.
The twentieth century has brought about economic
globalization. All economies have become open and closely
linked as a result of advances in science and technology.
All these factors have provided a powerful impetus to
social and economic development while creating their own
specific problems. The gap between the industrial and the
formerly colonial worlds has not only persisted but has
begun to widen. Development assistance should remain a
principal focus of future United Nations activities. Crises,
primarily financial ones, have assumed an international
character. We must draw the appropriate lessons and
modernize the architecture of the world financial system.
The United Nations and its specialized agencies should
play a role here.
The expansion of human economic activities has
brought about a globalization of both natural and
man-made disasters, and this has become a major
destabilizing global factor. The challenges related to the
prevention of such disasters and the elimination of their
consequences require that the most advanced technologies
be used for the benefit of the world community as a
whole. Why not consider, therefore, the establishment,
under the auspices of the United Nations, of a specialized
international emergency agency which would assume
relevant functions?
A widely known saying reads: "It is much easier to
win a war than a peace." The United Nations founders
won the war and laid the foundations for peace. It is our
duty to win this peace and to make it comprehensive and
irreversible.


At the outset, we would like to congratulate you,
Mr. President, on your outstanding election to guide our
work during the fifty-fourth session of the United Nations
General Assembly and, through you, to pay a well-deserved
tribute to your country, the Republic of Namibia. My
country subscribes to the generally held view that your
well-known diplomatic skills and broad experience will
contribute to the success of our work.
We also warmly congratulate the new Member States,
Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga, on their admission to the great
family of the United Nations. This is a great victory for the
principles of free expression and self-determination of
peoples and nations. That is the only way to enrich the
democratic nature of the United Nations with the diversity
and universality of mankind.
It is with optimism and hope that we participate in
this session of the General Assembly. We reaffirm our
full commitment to the purposes and principles that were
the basis for the establishment of the world Organization.
We believe that its more than 50 years of existence,
which have made their mark on the twentieth century and
have helped bring about great social, political, economic
and technological changes, constitute a positive legacy for
the future of mankind.
We have high hopes for this session because those
long years of experience and the fact that we are about to
enter the third millennium mean that we can talk of a
United Nations jubilee for the new era, in which mankind
should fully benefit from our achievement of the goals
and ideals of a world of peace, free from war and
conflict. We want all men and women to be able to enjoy
their most inalienable rights — to freedom, dignity and
equality — and we want all the world's nations and
peoples to live in justice and equity. Ultimately, we want
all human beings, without distinction and without
discrimination, to enjoy the benefits of economic, social
and cultural progress.
But in spite of these long years of history, the end
of the cold war, our long experience and the many events
that have taken place in this half-century process —

advances in the new technologies of space exploration,
atomic science, remote sensing and other progress that is of
incalculable value for the future of mankind — we note
with concern that we have yet to guarantee peace and
security for all nations.
That is why we must adopt strategies and measures
that will enable developing countries to take advantage of
their opportunities for progress and that will make it
possible for all people to enjoy the best possible living
conditions on this, our home planet. We must make sure
that, as our common heritage, education, science and
technology reach all people so that human development can
enable them to enjoy their rights to dignity and
responsibility. We must examine our consciences and
understand that it is we ourselves who are slowing the
advance of human progress.
The desire for power and world hegemony,
exacerbated by extremism, ethnic and racial discrimination
and intolerance and fanaticism born of political beliefs and
theories, has created a climate of war, terror and insecurity
in many parts of the world and could unleash a new world
confrontation. The most striking examples of this may be
seen in the situations in the Persian Gulf, the Balkans, the
Middle East, Africa and Latin America, as well as in the
recent escalation of violence in South-East Asia.
Moreover, despite the demands of third-world
countries and the attempts to establish a new world
economic order that would be more just and equitable for
all, the present unjust economic system continues to prevail,
impeding trade between the North and the South. We must
realize that the economic situation is an irreplaceable
element of the balance of domestic and international peace
and security: peace does not mean the mere absence of
hostilities; it is a state of perfect harmony in human life in
the economic, social, cultural and moral spheres. For Africa
and for the Africans, political idealism can flourish only if
it is attended by concrete action that will guarantee human
survival and justify the aims of that idealism. Let us not
forget that political idealism of any kind is based on a
culture appropriate to the population in question. Here,
human beings are the raw material, and the proper
conditions must be present for the success of that kind of
ideal political system. Hence, so long as the peoples of
Africa suffer from hunger, poverty, war and pandemic
disease, and so long as they are overwhelmed by cultural
deficiencies, ignorance and illiteracy, efforts to democratize
their States and ensure peace will always fail.
It is said that an empty sack cannot stand by itself.
Africa needs economic inputs, technology transfer for
development, and recognition of its cultural and moral
values, so that internecine struggle will cease and so that
democracy and political theories will be employed in the
most objective way.
That is why Central African heads of States
members of the Economic Commission of Central African
States and of the Central African Economic and Monetary
Commission, meeting at Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, from
23 to 26 June 1999, carefully studied all these factors and
adopted, inter alia, strategies to prevent conflict in the
region. They decided to establish a subregional
parliament, a peacekeeping force and an institute for the
promotion and defence of human rights. We hope that the
United Nations will support these decisions.
The reality is that in Africa there is strong pressure
from underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment and
illiteracy which justifies the flight of intellectuals and the
current exodus of Africans to developed countries in
search of a livelihood. Accordingly, we call for United
Nations support for the decision adopted in Algeria by the
heads of State of Africa to increase humanitarian support
for the millions of African refugees, to amounts
comparable to those given other regions.
This is also for me a favourable opportunity to
reaffirm our solidarity with the political will and the
determination of the African States to speed up the
mechanisms for integration and unity, to meet the
challenges of globalization in order to ensure global
development for mankind. In order for political and
democratic systems to succeed in Africa, the economy
and economic culture should have a key role among the
elements that go along with them, for otherwise they
would develop without any objective basis.
Unfortunately, we find that currently there is no firm
political will for cooperation between the North and
South, as there was in the past. In fact, now there is just
a clash of various selfish interests in which the strongest
or the richest always win.
At this time we recall the great projects of economic
cooperation in post-war Europe which enlivened Europe,
South-East Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.
Attempts of the same kind have been sought for Africa
with the construction of considerable infrastructure to help
the peoples of this continent: for example, the Aswan
dam in Egypt, hydroelectric power stations on the Volta
2

River in Ghana, in Inga in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and in Mombasa in Tanzania. Unfortunately, this
political will to aid the development of the continent has
not continued.
This, then, is the high price for the independence of
African nations. The political development of the continent
is now confronted with a number of difficulties and
challenges.
First is the need to establish sincere industrial
cooperation with developed countries, instead of the present
merciless extraction of natural resources and their
exportation as raw materials, with no compensatory
exchange for technologies to process them.
Secondly, there is need to achieve fair prices in the
exchange of natural resources for manufactured goods, as
prices have not gone up more than 25 per cent since
independence.
A third challenge is that credit is given under
conditions that do not allow the population to satisfy its
needs nor to profit from corresponding investments, the
debt for which is mortgaging the economy.
Fourth, conditions are imposed on cooperation using
political criteria that do not take into account the reality of
African societies, as well as another series of conditions
that funnel the benefits of the current international
economic system to a powerful few.
Nonetheless, we recognize and are grateful for the
decision by the seven major industrialized countries to retire
the debt of developing countries. We cherish the hope this
political will may spread to all donor countries and that its
application will not be according to selective and
exclusionary criteria.
Praiseworthy in the same way is the initiative by the
Administration of the President of the United States of
America to increase American investment in Africa, an
initiative which we hope will be a second Marshall Plan for
the African continent.
Certainly, the consequences of selfishness and of
unfair distribution of available resources have created, in
the developed as much as in the developing countries,
frustrated groups of people who today are a cause of
political and social instability in many parts of the world.
With respect to human resources, we must analyze
in depth the causes of the current juvenile delinquency,
organized crime, rape, kidnappings and indiscriminate
killings, drug addiction and drug trafficking, alcoholism,
prostitution, money laundering, counterfeiting, terrorism
and corruption which exist at all social levels everywhere.
All these practices challenge us and compromise the
future of humanity.
Our concern is that these behaviours make up our
legacy for the generations of the third millennium. Does
the new epoch to which we aspire beginning in the year
2000 presuppose the rise of some and the regression to
poverty and misery of others? Can international peace and
security guarantee protection only for some, denying it to
others?
Equatorial Guinea does not aspire to hegemony or
power, yet we speak here with the conviction of the
obligation that falls to us as a member of this democratic
international community to ask for what is best for
mankind.
Socio-political development and technological
advances tell us that we are in a different galaxy from
that of earlier times. The United Nations is the only
Organization that has exercised leadership in the process
of the world's development. Yet after 54 years, we must
realize that the terms of reference of the world's current
socio-political reality are not those in effect in 1945. It is
clear that the United Nations is similarly undergoing
changes which correspond to this moment in history, in
social philosophy, mechanisms, structure and action.
Today we talk of democracy as the only way to
promote the development of peoples, ensure peace and
guarantee respect for human dignity. Today we talk of
globalizing world politics and policies and of the
governance of States because the concept of social
development finds its justification only in the values of
the individual. The United Nations should therefore take
no action that is not in keeping with those values and is
not a faithful expression of this interdependent, unipolar
world that calls for unified criteria. We must make a
special effort to help young people so that they can carry
on the positive values of humankind for the sake of a
more integrated, more developed, more just and more
equitable world.
The ideal of any governments must be to seek peace,
progress and prosperity for its peoples. In this connection,
the efforts of the countries that are fighting to
3

democratize their societies be properly appreciated and
supported by countries with longer democratic experience.
It has been proved that penalizing governments and peoples
is counterproductive and makes them unable to promote
national development however much they want to. The
United Nations ought to assist these countries closely in
their economic, social, technical and cultural advancement,
in keeping with the spirit of globalization and the actual
situation in each country.
We believe that the current United Nations system is
obsolete in terms both of decision-making and of the
effectiveness of its actions when it comes to dealing
properly with the difficulties and challenges facing its
members. Indeed, the proliferation of peacekeeping
operations in various parts of the world is proof that the
current conflict-prevention system is obsolete.
As an organization founded on democracy, the United
Nations must establish the principle across the board that all
parties must be given a hearing in all bodies, including the
Security Council, that take decisions affecting its Members.
Moreover, the most sophisticated nuclear technology should
be employed exclusively as a common shared possession to
be used for the benefit of all humankind rather than as
private property that benefits some to the detriment of
others.
We believe that in globalizing world politics and
policies, which is positive in theory in that it unifies socio-
political criteria, States should nevertheless implement the
philosophy by adopting specific measures that are in
keeping with the specific characteristics of each country. In
this connection, Equatorial Guinea has particular experience
in implementing its programme of transition to a multi-
party system by applying the theory of the democratic test,
a way to involve the people in taking all the political
decisions that affect them. As a result, our transition has
been peaceful, orderly and calm because our people
themselves, no one else, are responsible for the measures
adopted, which all political actors must respect.
A progressive and continuous process of adaptation by
the authorities and by the people themselves is needed so
that they acquire the right sort of culture in which human
rights and democracy can be respected. In that connection,
we welcome the efforts by the Commission on Human
Rights to adopt a special assistance programme for
Equatorial Guinea to promote and ensure respect for human
rights there.
We are party to all the human rights treaties and
conventions and have adopted a wide-ranging framework
of laws and regulations to protect human rights. However,
the lack of infrastructure makes it difficult for the people
to enjoy in full the various services to which they are
entitled.
I would conclude by making clear our political
resolve to contribute to the maintenance of international
peace and security, promote close friendship and mutually
beneficial cooperation between all States and promote
economic, scientific and technological development
throughout the world. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea
stands open to the world as a peaceful State that puts
dialogue and negotiation first, rejecting force of any kind
as a means of resolving conflicts.
We hope that the year 2000, which is almost on us,
will become a milestone in establishing a world truly
committed to peace, progress and prosperity for
humankind.


It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Mr.
Gurirab on his election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. I am confident that
the struggle for freedom of his friendly country, Namibia,
and his wide-ranging knowledge of international issues
will facilitate his lofty task and will lead the deliberations
of the Assembly at this important session to a successful
conclusion.
I should like to express my thanks to the Foreign
Minister of Uruguay for his efforts and wise leadership of
our deliberations in the General Assembly during the
previous session. I should also like to express our
gratitude to the Secretary-General of our Organization,
Mr. Kofi Annan, for his attempts to uphold the principles
and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Republic of
Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of
Tonga to the United Nations. We are confident that the
presence of these States in the international community
will buttress the role of the United Nations and uphold its
principles.
15

Leaving the last century of the second millennium and
entering the first century of the third millennium does not
in itself mean the end of an era and the beginning of a new
one in the life of humankind. States and peoples will take
with them into the next century their concerns, aspirations,
successes, failures, challenges and hopes. They will
continue as usual to follow their economic, educational,
political and social development plans and programmes,
knowing that the end of the twentieth century will not
automatically mean an end to current regional conflicts.
Neither will it automatically raise levels of development or
rid developing countries of the debt burdens under which
they are languishing.
If the advocates of market theories and globalization,
and their political leaders, were to recognize that at present
the poor are becoming poorer while the rich become richer
and that the gap between developing and developed
countries is becoming wider in every area — whether in the
economic, commercial, technical, health or environmental
spheres — an element of pessimism would, unfortunately,
mar the feeling of optimism with which we hope to
welcome the dawn of the twenty-first century.
Optimism about the future is desirable because it
prevents humanity, both at individual and society levels,
from falling into the trap of despair and frustration.
Optimism is also justified because progress in research,
science and knowledge shrinks distances, eliminates
obstacles and opens doors and minds in the South as well
as in the North. Given that fact, it is natural that people's
understanding of each other's problems and concerns should
increase and that ultimately a common awareness will
develop to enable everyone to face the threats and
challenges that await humankind everywhere on this planet.
Like poisonous waste from industrial development, the
epidemics resulting from underdevelopment and poverty
know no borders or obstacles. Drugs would not have spread
in some States in the South had it not been for the many
traffickers and users in the countries of the North. Neither
should we forget that the pollution of the environment in
the countries of the North is primarily the result of
industrial production of all kinds, both sophisticated and
basic, at a time when environmental pollution in the
countries of the South is primarily the result of the lack of
a minimum of small, basic industries capable of making
products to deal with environmental pollution or of
employing the means to do so.
In this context, we should like to reaffirm our belief
that weakening the economies of the developing countries
does not necessarily serve the interests of the economies
of developed countries, because it weakens the purchasing
power of the former, which, in turn, negatively affects the
rates of economic development of the latter. The financial
crisis that affected the economies of the countries of
South-East Asia two years ago reflected that mutual effect
when its repercussions reached Brazil and even some
other countries in South America. There must, therefore,
be a constructive dialogue between developing and
developed countries, a dialogue based on common
interests, genuine interrelations and mutual responsibilities
aimed at ensuring sustainable development and social
justice.
We hope that there will be an end to the contrariety
by which the industrial countries demand that developing
countries open their markets and borders to their products
while the developing countries are finding it difficult to
export their goods because of protectionist measures and
obstacles, including the prevention of the transfer of
technology and the refusal to allow developing countries
to integrate such technology into their industrial
processes.
If we were to look back at the ethnic and religious
wars and conflicts that spread with the end of the cold
war and that reached the heart of Africa, Asia and even
Europe, we would find it difficult to imagine their
repercussions being confined within closed borders.
Through succeeding waves of migration, various religions
and ethnic groups have become part of the social fabric
of most societies in the world, especially in Western
countries. The tragedy of such wars and conflicts is
therefore a source of concern for most countries of the
world, particularly the United States of America, which
has the largest number of ethnic and religious groups of
any country in recent history. That fact explains the
interest the United States takes in regional conflicts,
particularly those in the Middle East, which have
repercussions at the domestic level in the United States.
Such American interest is commensurate with the varied
impact of these conflicts, although one should not
disregard the other economic and strategic interests.
The impact of impressive scientific and technological
advances in communications and in the flow of
information on such events will not be limited to a
momentary pinprick of conscience when we see them on
our television screens. It could well go beyond this in the
future, resulting in concrete action by large groups and
16

could in turn threaten the stability and sovereignty of
States, especially those whose populations encompass many
ethnic groups and religions.
It is regrettable that these grave challenges and
phenomena will be carried over into the next century,
perhaps for years or even decades, without a remedy. We
are convinced that the best framework for facing up to
these challenges and phenomena in a serious and effective
manner is a United Nations truly respected by all its
Member States, one based on collective action by the States
of the North and of the South, all according to their own
potential and capacities.
Marginalizing the role of the United Nations, using it
only on selected occasions and as a cover for initiatives and
decisions adopted outside the Security Council, will serve
the interests of no one. The problems and challenges facing
mankind are truly grave and dangerous both quantitatively
and qualitatively. We believe that no one State, however
powerful and wise it is, can meet these universal problems
and challenges alone, much less find lasting, solid solutions
to them.
Clearly, many are dissatisfied with the use of
humanitarian pretexts to launch military intervention outside
the framework of the Security Council. It began with the
intervention in Somalia in 1992, whose repercussions
included the collapse of all State institutions and the
carving up of the capital, Mogadishu, among fighting
warlords. This trend continued with the intervention in
Kosovo, where the fate of the people remains in the
balance, although the intervention succeeded in supplying
the people with medicine and food.
But here it must be said that illegitimate intervention
outside the framework of the Security Council is not as bad
as completely ignoring dangerous and bloody crises such as
those beyond what might be called the line of death and
hunger: a line stretching from the Horn of Africa, in the
east, to Angola, in the west, and then to Rwanda, Burundi
and the Congo. Many suffering Africans who live along
this bleeding line and who lack the most basic necessities
may well envy the inhabitants of Kosovo, who at least had
food and medicine during their ordeal.
Since the end of the cold war hopes have been pinned
on the reform of the United Nations and on an increase in
the membership of the Security Council with a view to
achieving a more democratic and fairer representation in
this international organization. The Non-Aligned Movement
has been enthusiastic about this issue and has given it
serious consideration at all its conferences. Its member
States know full well that they lack influence in the
Security Council commensurate with their numbers and
reflecting their legitimate concerns. At the same time,
Germany and Japan, following major international
transformations, have become aware of how important it
is for them to become permanent members of the Security
Council. Here Italy has played an important role in
seeking a third way between the North and the South. No
solution has yet emerged that could attract consensus on
the subject among members of the United Nations.
The unavoidable question for us all is what has so
far been achieved in the process of reforming the Security
Council and promoting its role and status. The answer is
nothing, except for the marginalization of the role and
status of the Security Council and the extension of its
activities beyond the primary responsibility for
maintaining international peace and security, both when
events have required it and, at times, when they have not.
It seems that the premeditated marginalization of the role
of the Security Council and the fact that the reform
process has been almost dormant are being used by some
as a pretext for ignoring the Charter and violating the
sovereignty of States through the use of regional military
organizations as a substitute for the Security Council.
The world today cannot endure a nuclear arms race
that threatens the security and the very survival of
mankind, particularly in the absence of a just and stable
international order. There will be no successful non-
proliferation regime without achieving universality for the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT). Syria, the other Arab States and most countries of
the world have appealed to the five nuclear States, in the
light of the 1995 extension of the NPT, not to exclude
any State from acceding to the Treaty, so that the world
may be spared another nuclear arms race. A new nuclear
arms race has actually taken place in South Asia since the
extension of the Treaty. In the Middle East, Israel remains
the only State in the region that refuses to accede to the
Treaty and to submit all its nuclear installations to the
safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA). As the time for the next review of the
NPT approaches, Syria renews its call for transforming
the Middle East into a nuclear-weapon-free zone under
United Nations auspices, as a serious contribution to the
creation of a propitious climate for the regional peace,
security and stability to which we all aspire.
The international community looked to the peace
process that began at Madrid in 1991 as the most
17

important, most serious initiative for ending a conflict that
has been raging for decades, one that has bled the huge
economic and human energies of the peoples of the region.
The Madrid framework, the guarantees offered by the
United States, the results reached based on relevant Security
Council resolutions, the principle of land for peace, all
constituted obligations and commitments accepted by all
parties concerned. None of these can now be called into
question or circumvented. They all have been duly
deposited with the United States Administration, with the
agreement of the parties concerned. Hence Syria's call to
reaffirm that trust, including complete Israeli withdrawal to
the lines of 4 June 1967, and resumption of peace talks
with Israel from the point at which they were suspended in
order to address pending matters until both sides agree on
full peace.
What Syria is calling for cannot be considered a
“precondition”, as the Israeli government claims: if we were
to accept that it was, as the Netanyahu Government also
claimed, we would have to conclude that any agreement
between negotiators on any single component of any a
peace accord would always be considered a “precondition”
if any move were made to conclude any other component
of a peace accord. And that would invariably take
negotiations, back to square one after each step forward,
endlessly back and forth.
Also, we draw the Assembly's attention to the falsity
of the Israeli claim that Syria wants to get a particular
result in the negotiations before they have even started.
Needless to say, trust in the United States of America does
not, by itself, constitute a peace agreement; rather, it is a
fundamental part of an agreement whose remaining
elements — normal, peaceful relations and security
arrangements based on the purposes and principles laid
down under United States auspices and with its
participation — still need to be fleshed out.
So we were not surprised, yesterday, by the address of
the Foreign Minister of Israel before this Assembly, when
— under the flag of peace education — he requested
leaders and teachers to stress to their peoples and students
the importance of peace, totally ignoring the fact that the
Israeli occupation is a major reason for the absence of
peace in the region.
Peace education requires first and foremost an end to
Israel's occupation of Arab territories. Specifically, it must
withdraw from the Golan Heights to the 4 June 1967 line;
from south Lebanon; from the western Bekaa, and also
from Jerusalem, the city of peace. Settlement activities in
the occupied territories and the destruction of Arab houses
must stop. Last but not least, Israeli words about peace
must be translated into deeds, so that students in Israel do
not think that peace education means continued
occupation by force of other peoples' lands.
During the past few weeks, major efforts have been
made by the United States of America, and by the
European Union, the Russian Federation and other
countries. We hope that these efforts will continue until
Israel realizes how fair Syria's position is and how ready
Syria is to resume negotiations at the point where they
left off. Let us not waste long and arduous years of
negotiations: Syria is eager not to miss this opportunity to
achieve peace; if it is missed, then Israel alone should
take the blame.
Syria reaffirms once more its great concern for the
unity and territorial integrity of Iraq and calls for an end
to the suffering of the fraternal Iraqi people. It calls for
economic sanctions to be lifted, in accordance with the
relevant Security Council resolutions. It also calls for no
action or measure to be taken outside the United Nations
context. At the same time, we ask Iraq to implement the
remaining Security Council resolutions in a manner that
guarantees a just solution to the problem of Kuwaiti
prisoners of war and other detainees.
Syria also calls on the Security Council to put an
immediate and final end to the sanctions against Libya, as
Libya has honoured all its obligations under Security
Council resolutions. We would emphasize that we fully
support the Libyan requests for the sanctions to be ended.
In the light of the fraternal relations which Syria
maintains with the United Arab Emirates and the Islamic
Republic of Iran, we call on these two neighbouring
countries to hold talks to find a peaceful solution to the
dispute over three islands in the Gulf.
The continuing tragic situation in Afghanistan is a
source of great concern to us. We are convinced that the
Afghan problem can be solved only if the fighting ceases
and negotiations are begun on achieving national
reconciliation and finding an acceptable and lasting
political settlement that results in security and stability for
our friends the Afghan people.
Syria expresses its full support for all measures to
ensure peace, security and stability on the Korean
peninsula. It expresses its support also for the aspirations
of the Korean people for national unity achieved by
peaceful means and free of foreign intervention.
18

Syria once again highlights the need to take all
necessary steps, at the earliest possible moment, to end the
economic, trade and financial embargo on Cuba imposed by
the United States of America for almost four decades. We
support Cuba's call for differences between the two
countries to be resolved through dialogue and on a basis of
equality, mutual respect and good- neighbourly relations.
As we bid farewell to the twentieth century, the
human race is still yearning for a world free of war,
injustice, ignorance and poverty, a world governed by
international relations based on cooperation, mutual respect,
greater justice and true equity. Those are the yearnings
which the peoples of the world hope to see realized next
century, so that coming generations are guaranteed a better
life and a more prosperous and humane future.


On behalf of the Indonesian
delegation, I should first like to congratulate my colleague
and good friend Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Foreign Minister of
Namibia, on his election as President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. We are confident that
under his leadership we will achieve substantial progress in
our work.
To his predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti, I convey our
sincere appreciation for his able guidance of our work
during the last session.
I join other members in paying a tribute to our
Secretary-General for his untiring pursuit of the objectives
of the United Nations Charter.
On behalf of the Government and people of Indonesia,
I extend a warm welcome to Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga on
their accession to membership of the United Nations. My
delegation looks forward to working closely with them.
Every year at this time, for more than a decade now,
I have tried from this rostrum to present Indonesia's views
on the state of world affairs and international relations.
Today, I could deliver last year's statement, or even that of
three years ago, and it would not make much difference
because there really has been no significant change.
It is true that there are always a number of positive
developments. This year they include the Sharm el-Sheikh
Memorandum signed by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat
and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, which raises our
hopes for the resumption of the derailed Middle East peace
process. They include also the Lomé Peace Agreement on
Sierra Leone; the Framework Agreement on the conflict
between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Ceasefire Agreement on
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, some progress in
the rehabilitation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the
resolution of the stalemate over the Lockerbie incident.
Closer to home, there have been the signing of the 5 May
1999 Agreements reached in New York and the
implementation of the historic popular consultation in
East Timor which — although, most unfortunately, its
aftermath was marred by violence — remains an
important, positive development. These are all
encouraging steps in a long journey towards just and
durable solutions.
In the economic field, investor confidence is
beginning to trickle back into the Asian economies
severely hit by the financial and economic crisis. This
return of confidence and the positive signs in the affected
economies — such as stability of currencies and lower
interest rates — could be the first firm indications of a
recovery. Recently the G-8 decided to ease the debt
burden of the poorest countries by expanding the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries Debt Initiative. This will help the
poorest countries get back on the road of development.
But ours is still an essentially brutal world. In many
places, wanton violence and armed conflicts persist, often
bringing about humanitarian disaster. In spite of the
presence of a United Nations peacekeeping force, Serbs
and Albanian Kosovars are still shooting each other in
Kosovo. In Afghanistan, dialogue has been abandoned
and once more the warring factions have taken to the
battlefield. In South Asia, an uneasy ceasefire reigns over
the line of control between two neighbouring States with
nuclear-weapon capability. Meanwhile, in the backwaters
and slums of the developing world, in the ghettos of the
industrialized countries, hundreds of millions fight a
desperate war against poverty, ignorance and disease.
There has as yet been no fulfilment of a hope we all
share, a hope to which we have clung for nigh on a
century.
A hundred years ago, electricity was just beginning
to light up the cities of the world, the commercial
manufacture of horseless carriages had just begun and the
pioneers of air travel were taking off in crude flying
machines. But it was beyond question even then that
enormous power called science and technology had been
placed in the hands of humankind. It was clear even then
that the prudent use of such power could solve the
problem of poverty that for millenniums people accepted
and suffered as an inevitable part of the human condition.
Since then, unfortunately, that power has been used
instead to enlarge humankind's capacity to kill and
destroy. That terrible capacity was amply demonstrated in
two world wars that levelled cities and decimated
populations in Europe and Asia. In time of peace, science
34

and technology have made it possible for one part of
humanity to adopt an irresponsible lifestyle and patterns of
production and consumption that ravage the fragile ecology
of this planet while teeming millions, in the squalor of
poverty, driven by the pangs of hunger, are tearing their
environment apart in a desperate bid to survive.
Five decades ago, the human race teetered on the
brink of a nuclear holocaust, but we were able to postpone
the effective end of history because between us and the
precipice stood the one shining achievement of humanity in
a violent century, the United Nations. Founded in the wake
of the Second World War as a forum for maintaining
security, resolving conflicts and serving development, the
United Nations is, whatever its flaws, a masterpiece of
human reason.
It has not achieved its finest promise of global peace,
nor has it significantly curbed poverty. Still, it has managed
to save us from the horrors of yet another world war, one
fought with nuclear weapons. And together with its
specialized agencies and related institutions, it is carrying
out an immense array of activities in support of economic
development and social progress; these are touching every
aspect of people's lives all over the world, and thus at least
keep hopes alive.
But even the very instrument of our salvation is not
spared our recklessness: the United Nations has been
allowed to go bankrupt at a time when so much more is
demanded of it as the central mechanism and catalyst for
multilateral cooperation. Its organs should be working in
harmony and complementing one another: instead, we have
the spectacle of a Security Council — when not paralysed
by the veto of a permanent member — venturing to take
over the work of other United Nations organs in such fields
as human rights, democracy and humanitarian aid. The
unhappy truth is that the inequities, imbalances and
discrimination in international relations that the United
Nations was supposed to cure have infected its own vital
organs and processes.
This is true not only of the United Nations itself but
also of related multilateral institutions. This is why it has
been so difficult to reform, democratize and empower the
United Nations, and so difficult to make the membership of
the Security Council truly reflect the political, economic
and demographic realities of the world today.
Although the work of the Council is focused on
conflict situations that are mostly in the developing world,
developing countries are woefully under-represented on
the Council.
For the same reason, nuclear disarmament has
achieved no substantial progress in recent years. In fact,
the nuclear arms race has surged along as countries seek
to join and enjoy the dubious privileges of being nuclear-
weapon States. The world thus remains in danger of
nuclear self-destruction.
The same situation obtains in multilateral economic
forums. They, too, have become afflicted with the
inequities and imbalances they are meant to rectify. The
introduction of irrelevant social issues and undue
emphasis on unfettered markets in these forums have
brought about the neglect of core development issues,
such as international cooperation for development, the
need for non-commercial financial flows and the necessity
of differential treatment for developing countries.
Thus, the international agenda has been steered by
the desire of developed countries to open doors for their
foreign investments, private capital flows and exports.
This has led to the eclipse of development as a common
goal and a common responsibility of developed and
developing nations. It has engendered a tendency to forget
commitments reached at global conferences on
environment and development, social development,
population and development, women and development,
habitat and food.
Just over a decade ago, with the barriers of the cold
war broken down, science and technology unlocked the
awesome force of globalization. This blind force could
have served as the chief instrument of a united
humankind in a decisive assault against the global
problems of poverty and underdevelopment. We could
have enlisted it to empower people everywhere and thus
broaden participation in governance and productive
initiatives. We could have built a more equitable
partnership between the developed and the developing
world. But at best, the weaker economies were left to the
tender mercies of the market. At worst, globalization has
been used by the strong to press their advantage over the
weak, widening the chasm between rich and poor.
After all this, what can we say to sum up the
passing of 100 years? If progress means going to the
moon and exploring outer space; if it means the rapid
movement of money, goods and people from one
continent to another and the delegation of personal
initiative to clever machines, then we have made some
35

progress. But if it means the conquest of poverty, the
taming of the human penchant for conflict and violence,
and ensuring the long-term sustainability of human life, I
am afraid that we may be entering the new millennium not
really much better off than we were a century ago.
Our tragedy is not in our ignorance, but in the waste
of our wisdom. The truth is that we know the solutions to
our problems. We know what kind of global partnership it
would take to tackle the problems of poverty and
underdevelopment. We have spelled out the global
measures to initiate in order to prevent the irreversible
decay of our environment. And we are aware of what it
would take to move the disarmament agenda forward; what
kind of representation on the Security Council would make
it a true instrument of the whole international community.
But we do not make the necessary decisive moves
because these require change — profound and radical
change. There must be change not only in our methods, but
in the way we look at the world, the way we regard one
another and ourselves. That kind of change brings no
comfort and poses the deepest challenge to our faith and
our courage. Hence, we hesitate. The protracted debates in
this Assembly, in the Economic and Social Council, in the
Conference on Disarmament and in many other forums are
in reality just one long hesitation.
We in Indonesia know how difficult that kind of
change can be. In response to the Asian financial and
economic crisis, as well as to its social and political impact,
we have begun to reform our social, economic and political
institutions. New laws are being passed, new ways are
being tried to give our people the widest opportunity to
participate in the making of decisions that affect their lives,
to level the economic playing fields and to earn the
confidence of our foreign partners.
The Government has taken a long, hard look at itself
and its responsibilities today. In the case of East Timor, our
responsibility has changed. Twenty-four years ago, it was
our responsibility to accept the Territory as a province of
our Republic in order to stop ongoing fratricidal carnage
after a disastrously bungled decolonization process; to
accommodate the desire of the majority of East Timorese
at that time to seek freedom and sanctuary through
integration with our Republic; and to contribute to the
security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. We
accepted that responsibility and additional burden, although
we had never laid claim to that half-island, as it was not a
part of the Dutch East Indies out of which the Indonesian
nation evolved. Today our responsibility and our
commitment are to help make possible the fulfilment of
the newly expressed will of the majority of East Timorese
to seek a new destiny outside the Indonesian Republic.
We will abide by that responsibility and commitment and
at the same time ensure that the parting of ways will
proceed honourably, peacefully and amicably.
In this process of change, not only in East Timor but
also throughout our national life and in our relations with
our friends, we have not had an easy time. We have had
more than our share of setbacks, frustrations and
mistakes. In the depths of every disappointment, we have
had to summon the courage to persevere, to start all over
again whenever necessary, because there is no alternative
acceptable to our people. We do pray for the courage to
change, but not for ourselves alone.
For the solutions to the global problems of our time
demand a fortitude on the part of nations that is strong
enough to break the doubts, the prejudices, the sophistry
and the apathy that have hardened with the passing of
decades. That means the courage to take action where we
have only paid lip-service. It also means the courage to
recognize that many of our problems are complex and
demand more creativity from us than we have so far
demonstrated.
For instance, we fully agree that massive and
systematic violations of human rights, wherever they take
place, should not be tolerated or condoned. But we cannot
agree that this problem can be solved only by sacrificing
the principle of national sovereignty and sovereign
equality among nations. There must be a solution that
does not threaten to demolish a principle on which the
United Nations itself was founded. Let us have the
intellectual courage to look for that solution and be
willing to make any sacrifice to attain it, except the
sacrifice of our principles.
If many of us have grown cynical, I believe that it
is not out of arrogance, but out of fear of the
consequences of change, the loss of some privilege or
advantage over another, or out of fear of futility and
failure. We can overcome these fears because they are but
shadows on the wall; they have no substance. There will
be failures and there will be setbacks, but if what we set
out to do is worthwhile, and nothing is more worthwhile
than the perpetuation of humankind, we will succeed.
Let us now all act in consonance with our
commitments to the United Nations Charter; to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); to
36

Agenda 21; to the Uruguay Round and the World Trade
Organization (WTO); to all agreements on international
financial flows for development; on cooperation on human
rights; on the eradication of all forms of discrimination. We
cannot bring all of these to fruition in a single day, and
some of them not even in a full decade, but if we all do
that today, it will be enough to start with.
If we keep building on that to achieve something
significant, we engender encouragement. We add to the
fund of courage that the world needs to become a better
one. And that fund of courage is all it will take for
humanity to make an auspicious entry into the next
millennium.