Let me say at
the outset how pleased I am to see you, Sir, presiding over
the General Assembly at this session. In addition to being
a well-deserved tribute to you personally and to your
country, your presidency is a distinct honour and privilege
for Africa. Your task will definitely not be easy but we are
confident that your wisdom and broad experience will help
guide our Organization in discharging its leadership role in
world affairs. I hasten to pledge to you my delegation’s
full cooperation and active participation in the deliberations
ahead.
Let me take this opportunity to say how welcome the
leadership provided by Ambassador Samuel Insanally was
during the past session. We commend him for the clear
vision and diligence with which he steered the work of the
Organization.
The Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
equally deserves appreciation for having carried out his
responsibilities with sagacity and serenity despite the
complex and sensitive nature of the issues that have
retained our attention this past year.
It is also my distinct pleasure to associate myself
with all those who have extended a hearty welcome to
non-racial democratic South Africa within the fold of the
Assembly. The end of apartheid in South Africa also
underscores the end of colonialism on the African
continent. However, there still remain a few areas where
the process is not complete, but I firmly believe that it
will not be long before we can boast of a totally free
world. In this regard, I should like to say that, with
respect to the question of the return of the Chagos
Archipelago to the sovereignty of Mauritius, we have
continued to pursue a positive dialogue with the United
Kingdom and that some progress has been registered.
The United Nations of today is perceived differently
from what it was less than a decade ago. The fabric of
international relations is undergoing profound
transformation. There is now more latitude and scope for
international cooperation and partnership than ever before
and the United Nations is increasingly becoming the focal
point for such cooperation on a number of fronts. The
numerous activities in such fields as peace-keeping,
preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, humanitarian relief,
election monitoring and supervision undertaken by the
Organization during the past few years indicate that its
leadership and potential to play an active role on the
international scene have been recognized.
But we should all accept the obvious reality that the
United Nations, despite its potential and goodwill, does
not have the material capacity nor can it muster the
financial resources to attend to every potential or actual
crisis situation. While it has become evident that
solutions to the present-day crises cannot but be evolved
within the framework of international cooperation, such
cooperation, however, is still lacking or, where it does
exist, is but lukewarm in substance. That is why, despite
the end of super-Power rivalry which, in theory, should
have eased tensions the world over, conflicts and tensions
have continued to flare up. Though the international
community does mobilize itself, albeit with disastrous
delay at times, to address such situations, peaceful
solutions remain elusive. Is it because our agenda in
addressing these problems is not always the same?
Coming from a small island State where our priorities
remain the economic progress of the country and the
constant improvement of the quality of life of our
citizens, I harbour the dream that we, leaders of the
6

international community, can still bequeath to future
generations a world which thrives on peace. On the eve of
the fiftieth anniversary of the Organization can we not
pledge and dedicate ourselves to that goal and recommit our
efforts to that end?
It has, it seems, become fashionable to question
whether the United Nations system is well adapted to the
new changing situations that confront us and whether it is
equipped to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.
But we often forget that we are the United Nations.
My delegation believes that the United Nations, given
its universality, should inevitably continue to have a central
and important role in the universal management of our
society. But to be able to do this satisfactorily there is an
urgent need not only to revitalize the Organization,
streamlining its agenda, but also to overhaul its structures,
bringing in more transparency in its internal operations and
taking on board the aspirations of the developing countries
which, after all, constitute the majority of our world.
In this regard, my delegation welcomes the ongoing
deliberations in the open-ended working group on the
question of equitable representation on and increase in the
membership of the Security Council. It is our hope that the
wide spectrum of views expressed so far on this subject,
though seemingly divergent, would eventually converge to
become a consensual approach that would render the
Council more transparent and democratic.
The review of the membership of the Council should
be such as to make it functionally effective and as widely
representative of the membership of the United Nations.
But it should also, I reiterate, be the product of as large a
consensus as possible to preserve its credibility. In this
context, while considering an increase in the permanent
membership of the Council, one should not be biased in
favour of the economic giants of this world alone. The
developing countries have a legitimate right to be
represented on the permanent slate of the Security Council,
for our concerns are different from those of the
industrialized and developed countries. The African and
Latin American continents should imperatively have their
share of the responsibility incumbent on the Council. We
have no doubt that those called upon to represent these two
continents as permanent members will have significant
contributions to make in the interest of the world at large.
While we do not favour too radical a reform, we believe
that the decisions of the Council should be arrived at by
consensus rather than through veto power. Such decisions
would obviously be more easily acceptable to the
international community. However, the present veto
system should be maintained for some time to come.
It is a fact that the United Nations has been playing
a more active role in world affairs and has been assuming
greater responsibilities in the fields of peace-keeping and
mediation in conflicts in a number of countries. But the
restructuring exercise needs to address other levels of our
Organization as well, so as to embrace the development
dimension of international relations. In this respect, one
should not shy away from a possible review of the United
Nations Charter itself, but the process, we believe, should
be gradual and consensual. A strengthened and reformed
United Nations should be able to contribute positively to
the fulfilment of the vision of its founders.
It is opportune here to remind ourselves of what, as
far back as 1945, the then United States Secretary of
State reported to President Truman on the result of the
San Francisco Conference. He said:
“The battle of peace has to be fought on two fronts.
The first is the security front where victory spells
freedom from fear. The second is the economic and
social front where victory means freedom from
want. Only victory on both fronts can assure the
world of an enduring peace. No provisions that can
be written into the Charter will enable the Security
Council to make the world secure from war if men
and women have no security in their homes and
jobs.”
Almost half a century later, we find an echo of the
same sentiment when our Secretary-General states that
“the development imperative is as much a priority
for the United Nations as the imperative of peace. ...
There can be no sustainable development without
peace. There can also be no real peace without
development.”
We fully subscribe to those views and would go
even further to say that international peace and security,
as well as an equitable and conducive environment and
the redress of the asymmetrical international financial and
trading relations, are necessary prerequisites for the
sustainable development of all countries in the world,
especially the developing ones.
In this respect, the plight of Africa is well known to
the world community. The causes of its ills and of its
weaknesses are well documented. While the disease has
7

been diagnosed, the cure is not yet in sight. Africa needs
a new order with a clear vision of hope that will ensure its
gradual integration into the international economic and
trading systems. Its marginalization, deliberate or
accidental, must be stopped and reversed.
The issue of human rights continues to be the subject
of varying perception. We believe that human rights are
indivisible, and therefore we hold the view that a revised
and reformed United Nations should concentrate equally, if
not more, on economic, social and cultural rights by
promoting international cooperation for development.
May I be allowed here to quote the example of
Mauritius? Since the last decade, the rapid strides we have
been making in the economic field have been accompanied
by consistent progress in the social and cultural fields, as
well as in the strengthening of the democratic framework.
Basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, of
association and of movement, and the holding of general
elections at regular intervals of five years with the free
participation of political parties and individuals are an
integral part of our culture. Our experience exemplifies the
synthesis that is being achieved through economic
development, which brings dignity to the population; social
development, for the protection of the weaker sections of
the population; and the strengthening of all democratic
institutions, for the evolution of a harmonious society.
The report by the Secretary-General entitled “An
Agenda for Development” is therefore timely and will no
doubt place the issue of development in its different aspects
in a prominent place on the international agenda. The
Secretary-General needs to be commended for this
interesting report, which highlights the multidimensional
nature of development. The report has been further
enriched by the constructive proposals contained in the
Ministerial Declaration of the Group of 77 adopted on 24
June 1994 in New York. I commend this Declaration as an
important contribution by the developing world to the
debate on the report.
Let our world, both developing and developed, take
advantage of the new environment. And let us commit
ourselves to reducing poverty, hunger and illiteracy in the
world; commit ourselves to ensuring a steady and
increasing flow of financial resources, as well as transfer of
technology, to the developing countries; and commit
ourselves to comprehensively tackling the debt problem.
Only through such commitments and shared responsibilities
and action in an increasingly interdependent world will it be
possible to stop the further marginalization of a large
number of developing countries and help integrate them
in a just and equitable international economic, financial
and trading system.
Next year will witness the establishment and setting
up of the World Trade Organization, which is expected to
contribute towards the development of an integrated, more
viable and durable multilateral trading system. I take this
opportunity to exhort the members of that organization to
adopt positive measures so as to ensure that the
developing countries, this time, secure a fair share in the
expected growth of the world.
Genuine fears have been voiced by a number of
developing countries, especially small island States, that
are vulnerable to natural disasters and suffer from the
disadvantages of being far from their sources of supply of
raw materials and foodstuffs and the markets for their
export products. It is feared that the results of the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) will adversely affect their trade, especially
the trade preferences from which they benefit in the
context of contractual agreements entered into with a
group of developed countries, principally with the
European Union.
My own country stands to be affected both as an
exporter and as a net food-importing country. We
therefore appeal for steps to be taken, as provided for in
the Final Act of the GATT Uruguay Round, to provide
adequate compensation for any such loss. I should like
here to stress the need for the preservation of the existing
preferential trade regime of the Lomé Convention of the
African, Caribbean and Pacific Group and the European
Economic Community.
Any attempt to bring in new issues concerning the
multilateral trading system, including the World Trade
Organization, would not be appropriate at this juncture.
In this regard, it would serve no useful purpose for the
developed and the developing countries to adopt
confrontational positions while dealing with such sensitive
issues as the “social clause and the trade regime” and
“trade and the environment”. My country for one will
resist the inclusion of any clause that may appear as a
disguised protectionist measure.
However, I also believe taking as an example my
own country, where worker’s rights are protected by the
Constitution, that internationally recognized labour
standards and norms and the legitimate rights of workers
should be respected. This is important if man is to be at
8

the centre of development. The enjoyment of these rights,
and the observance of labour standards, should be
encouraged in all countries, without, of course, losing sight
of their respective levels of socio-economic development,
or the development needs and objectives of developing
countries.
I am happy to state, in that context, that my
Government recently introduced legislation to ensure that
workers participate in the management of enterprises and
become shareholders in the sugar sector where they are
employed. This is being done in the context of a new
social order based on partnership, and it is meant to favour
the democratization of the economy.
This leads me to the forthcoming World Summit for
Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on
Women and the United Nations Conference on Human
Settlements (Habitat II), to be held next year. In our view,
all these conferences are geared towards one simple goal:
to better the lot of mankind, and in so doing, to enhance
human dignity. It is our sincere and cherished hope that
these summit meetings and conferences will contribute to
the debate on the Agenda for Development and will
encourage a better understanding of the nature and
complexity of the development problems facing the
developing world. May these conferences come up with
reasonable and concrete proposals, backed by a clear
commitment of resources for their implementation.
It is true that the end of the cold war and the
disappearance of ideological conflicts have significantly
altered the geopolitical configuration of the world. They
have modified the nature of international relations, with
strategic economic alliances replacing military ones in a
world still in search of a new order — which thus far has
remained elusive.
In such an uncertain and volatile situation, where the
survival of the fittest and of the most competitive is the
order of the day, small and economically vulnerable
countries need assurances with regard to their security and
continued economic development and social progress. In
this respect, renewed attention is being given, in different
parts of the world, to regional cooperation and integration.
We believe that the salvation of small and weak
economies depends on the successful implementation of
regional cooperation and integration programmes. We view
regionalism as an important complement to multilateralism,
especially when open regionalism does not lead to
exclusiveness. I therefore appeal to the international
community to fully support the successful implementation
of regional cooperation and integration programmes,
especially the nascent ones in Africa.
In our own region, organizations such as the Indian
Ocean Commission, the Preferential Trade Area for
Eastern and Southern African States and the Southern
African Development Community are useful vehicles for
economic cooperation and integration among member
countries and help to strengthen our economies.
Political stability, good governance, respect for basic
human rights and freedoms are prerequisites to economic
development. It is therefore the duty of the international
community to ensure movement in that direction. We
have, however, failed by not responding quickly enough
to the agony of Rwanda, and, as the Secretary-General
has stated, we have acquiesced in the continued loss of
lives. The serious plight of hundreds of thousands of
refugees from Rwanda remains a major source of
concern. We should redouble efforts and commit
ourselves to urgently addressing such human catastrophes
of epic proportions, which, if left unattended or if tackled
timidly, may very well spill over into neighbouring
countries of the region and affect them adversely.
I had the opportunity to state my country’s position
on this issue at the recent Organization of African Unity
(OAU) Summit in Tunis, where I warned that Burundi
was sitting on a powder keg that risked explosion unless
the international community acted in earnest to contain
the problem. Though the situation has eased to a certain
extent, due mainly to Operation Turquoise and to the
commitment of troops from OAU member States, the
region still remains fragile. Countries which have the
resources must come to the fore and fully assume their
responsibility to prevent a recurrence of this tragic
episode.
My country, for its part, besides its interventions in
international forums and its modest contributions in cash
and in kind, played host to the dialogue between the
President of Zaire and the President of Rwanda, which
culminated in the signature of an accord with respect,
mainly, to the refugee situation.
I should like to use the opportunity of speaking
before this forum to appeal to my brothers in Angola,
Liberia and Somalia and elsewhere in Africa, where
pockets of tension exist that can flare up into unnecessary
conflicts, to apply peaceful means to resolve and iron out
their differences.
9

It would be fitting here to flag Mozambique as an
example where dialogue has prevailed over armed struggle,
and where, in a few days’ time, the people will be
exercising their freedom of choice to elect those they wish
to govern the country. Similarly, it is a matter of
satisfaction that the constitutional problem in Lesotho has
been resolved peacefully and through constant dialogue. In
that respect, I should like to commend the efforts deployed
by my brothers, Presidents Mugabe, Masire and Mandela.
I wish the same fervour could be demonstrated by
others who are active in the Bosnia and Herzegovina
conflict, where countless lives continue to be lost, where
human suffering has crossed the limits of endurance, where
the population seems to have resigned itself to a fate
imposed upon it by the warring factions. Are we not
responsible enough, human enough, to resolve the problems
besetting that region, the more so as conflicts like those
which have plagued Northern Ireland and the Middle East
over decades, and which appeared unsolvable, are being
addressed resolutely, and with positive results?
Indeed, the positive developments in the Middle East
mark a turning point in the inter-State relationships in that
region and augur well for peace and stability. It is my
fervent wish that the spirit of moderation and compromise
that has made it possible for positive results to be achieved
in the ongoing negotiations will continue to prevail and
helps open other avenues for peace to be restored in the
entire region.
Let us, leaders of the world, on the eve of the fiftieth
year of our Organization’s existence, take inspiration from
the positive trends that have emerged in the Middle East,
from the successful transition in South Africa as a result of
peaceful negotiations, and commit ourselves to resolving
conflictual situations — historical as well as current —
through dialogue. In this regard, let me make an earnest
appeal to Pakistan and to India, countries equally dear and
near to us, not to internationalize their differences but to
address them bilaterally through peaceful means. We
should like to encourage both Governments to resume their
dialogue in a spirit of trust and compromise, in the higher
interests of their countries and peoples, and indeed in the
interest of the entire region.
I am gratified to learn that in Sri Lanka, following the
installation of the new Government, a dialogue has been
initiated between the parties in conflict. This is indeed a
commendable move.
Such positive efforts can only be beneficial to the
international community, for the peace dividends that will
thus ensue will permit the world to tackle, with undivided
attention, the agenda of economic and social development,
in order to make the world a safer place in which to live.
That is why we continue to hope for speedy positive
developments in such places as Fiji, where equality of
citizenship is yet to prevail.
Another issue that remains a major preoccupation of
my country is the question of disarmament. Next year,
the Conference to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) will take place. Mauritius has made its position
amply clear on this issue. Any extension of the NPT
should be linked to progress on nuclear disarmament and
the achievement of a comprehensive test-ban treaty, as
well as the establishment of a negotiating framework
within which the discriminatory nature of the Treaty
should be examined. We have stated in no uncertain
terms that the world cannot be divided permanently into
countries permitted to have nuclear weapons and countries
not permitted to have them. A treaty perceived as
making such a decision permanent is bound to fail and
cannot be expected to last.
Without the convincing support of the NPT
members, we may fail in our endeavours to make the
world nuclear-weapon-free. The recent dispute between
a Member State of the Treaty and the International
Atomic Energy Agency clearly indicates that the NPT is
not infallible. Equally alarming is the trading in enriched
uranium and plutonium, in stark contradiction of the
objectives of the Treaty. As long as there are nuclear-
weapon States, there will be an urge for other States with
nuclear potential to acquire such weapon-grade material,
thus putting the world community in jeopardy.
Mauritius would like at this point to welcome the
efforts for the conclusion of a treaty to make all of
Africa, a nuclear-weapon-free zone. It is our earnest
hope that the exclusive club of nuclear-haves, principally
the permanent members of the Security Council, will do
everything to permit the emergence of such a zone and
the conclusion of the treaty.
10

(spoke in French)
As Acting President of the Conference of Heads of
State or Government of French-speaking countries, I should
like to say a few words in the French language, which
brings together this community of dialogue and cooperation
numbering 47 countries with more than 400 million
inhabitants. Since 1986, the highest officials of these
countries, which are found on the five continents, have been
regularly holding summit meetings to review those
problems that affect the francophone world and seek
together for solutions to global problems.
My country thus had the honour of hosting the Fifth
Summit of the Francophone World last October. It may
seem surprising to some that a country member of the
Commonwealth whose official language is English should
have been selected to host such a Summit and thus to
become the spokesman of the francophone group for a two-
year period. In fact, for us Mauritians, this is in no way
unusual, since we live with our cultural and linguistic
diversity in perfect harmony. Indeed, Mauritian culture is
the result of a synthesis worked out through history. We
live in a society that integrates the linguistic, religious and
social contributions of Europe, Africa and Asia. The theme
of “Unity in Diversity”, which inspired the work of that
Summit, is very dear to our country. All the segments of
the Mauritian nation participate in creating a national
identity while preserving their ancestral cultures. This
message of unity in diversity, based on the recognition of
difference and on human solidarity, is even more relevant
in the difficult and complex situation in today’s world.
The Heads of State or Government wish the
francophone world to cooperate more closely with regional
and international organizations that are working for
democracy, peace and the development of the world — first
and foremost, of course, is the United Nations. We have
adopted a series of resolutions to promote this new
partnership. It is, moreover, in this context that we had the
pleasure of welcoming the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, His Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to
Mauritius. During the Summit, we were able to intensify
a dialogue that we have been maintaining since then by
various means. However, we hardly had time to acquire
the means to implement our own resolutions when events
began to move rapidly in the francophone world.
Indeed, on the day following the Mauritius Summit,
our brother Melchoir Ndadaye, President of Burundi, was
brutally assassinated. The Organization of African Unity
and the United Nations were immediately notified. Then
the situation deteriorated in Rwanda, and once again we
notified these two international forums. Given the lack of
action during the first few days, we welcomed France’s
intervention for strictly humanitarian purposes, which
allowed numerous lives to be saved.
In addition to their concern regarding the Great
Lakes region, the countries of the francophone world are
deeply moved about the situation in Haiti. We have been
following developments in that country very closely, and
we were gratified to note that positive steps have been
taken towards re-establishing democracy. We are
awaiting with great impatience, and in the interest of the
Haitian people, the return of legitimate power to this
country, a country that has suffered so much in the course
of its recent history.
The francophone world, for its part, has adopted
numerous resolutions aimed at securing for the
Francophone community a more dynamic presence
internationally. It will thus be able to make a
contribution in the specific fields of its competence. I
should like, in particular, to cite a resolution endorsing
the Secretary-General’s report, which is rightly entitled
“An Agenda for Development”. This resolution spells out
those themes which the francophone world would like to
see taken into consideration in the agenda and which will
be put forward by our representatives within the United
Nations during the preparatory stages.
At the Rio de Janeiro Summit, later in Vienna, then
in Barbados and in Cairo, and tomorrow in Copenhagen
and in Beijing, the countries of the francophone world are
consulting on the major problems the United Nations has
inscribed on its agenda. This is being done to arrive at
common positions for meeting the great challenges of
development.
Such concerted action is essential for the harmonious
development of our world at the dawn of the third
millennium; hence we are called upon to make a specific
contribution to illustrate that spirit of humanism that
motivates the francophone world.
The Mauritius Summit succeeded in situating the
francophone world in a more political and more
diplomatic context. The francophone world has an
original and positive message to spread through the world,
a message of liberty, solidarity and sharing. I am most
pleased to have conveyed it to you.


The Pakistan delegation
congratulates you warmly, Sir, on your election to preside
over this important forty-ninth session of the United
Nations General Assembly. Your election is a fitting
tribute to your experience and outstanding achievements.
It is also an expression of the high regard in which the
international community holds your great country. We are
confident that under your able stewardship this Assembly
will succeed in advancing the noble aims and objectives of
our Charter.
I wish also to record my delegation’s profound
appreciation for your predecessor, Ambassador Samuel
Insanally of Guyana. He presided most ably over the
Assembly as well as over the important Working Group on
Security Council reforms.
The principal purpose of this world Organization is
"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
The United Nations must ensure that the twilight of the
twentieth century is not as bloody as was its dawn. We
must act resolutely to end the series of regional conflicts
that currently threaten international peace and stability.
The civil war in Afghanistan has compounded the
suffering imposed on its people during the long and
victorious struggle against foreign occupation. The world
community should not forsake the Afghan people. We
must continue to demand an immediate end to the
hostilities. We must promote a new political consensus
for the future governance of Afghanistan. To facilitate
this, we must commence reconstruction in the peaceful
parts of the country.
We welcome the temporary truce in Tajikistan.
Pakistan hopes that the preliminary steps agreed will be
implemented by the parties. This is essential to ensure
the success of the third round of United Nations-
sponsored talks, to be held in Islamabad later this month.
The United Nations must encourage the peaceful
resolution of the Cyprus issue on the basis of a bi-
communal and bi-zonal federation, in which the Turkish
Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot community would have
equal status.
The Security Council must act, under Chapter VII of
the Charter, to implement its own resolutions, reverse the
Armenian aggression and restore the unity and territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan.
We all bear a collective responsibility for the failure
to halt and reverse Serbian aggression against Bosnia and
Herzegovina. A holocaust has taken place before the
eyes of the world. Two hundred thousand Bosnians,
mostly Muslims, have been killed. Of them, 30,000 were
innocent children. Forty thousand Muslim women have
been systematically raped by the Serbs. Millions of
Muslim men, women and children have been ejected
forcibly and brutally from their homes.
While the aggression was going on, the major
Powers went through the motions of promoting peace.
The Security Council adopted 50 resolutions, but it has
yet to implement them. Mediators appointed by the
United Nations and the European Union advocated peace
plans that rewarded the aggressor and penalized the
victim. Even the right to self-defence has been denied to
the Bosnians. The United Nations Protection Force has
10

supervised relief but failed to stop the war or protect the
Bosnian people. It was only when the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization carried out - belatedly - the threat of
air strikes that the Serbs halted their onslaught against
Goradze and Sarajevo.
The Bosnian Serbs have rejected the peace plan, which
is, in truth, unjust to the Bosnian Muslims. It does not
entirely reverse "ethnic cleansing". It does not punish the
aggressor. It does not ensure the territorial integrity of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia should be
offered peace with justice, otherwise peace will not endure.
Pakistan and other Islamic countries are appalled at the
Security Council’s recent decision to ease the sanctions
against Belgrade - the root cause of the aggression against
Bosnia and Herzegovina. This will not stop the flow of
military supplies to the Bosnian Serbs. It will merely
encourage Serbian intransigence.
The Bosnian Muslims must be allowed to exercise
their right to self-defence. Pakistan and other Islamic
countries fully support the demand for the immediate lifting
of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina. We
regret the threats by certain countries to withdraw their
troops from the United Nations Protection Force
(UNPROFOR) if the embargo is lifted. The Islamic States
will be ready to contribute their troops to UNPROFOR to
compensate for any shortfall created by such withdrawals.
We call for vigorous steps by UNPROFOR to effectively
protect and provision Sarajevo and other safe areas. We
also urge the creation of exclusion zones around all safe
areas.
If expansionism is not stopped in Bosnia, if genocide
is not punished, the virus of war will spread to Kosovo, to
Sandjak and perhaps to the entire Balkans. A wider
conflict in this volatile region could have the most serious
consequences for peace and security in Europe and the
Mediterranean.
A grim and bloody struggle is also going on in Jammu
and Kashmir. As in Bosnia, it is an unequal struggle -
between the defenceless Kashmiri people and an Indian
occupation force that now numbers 600,000. In Kashmir,
as in Bosnia, the principles of the Charter, of international
law and of international morality have been violated with
impunity.
The struggle of the Kashmiri people is just and
legitimate. They were promised by the United Nations
Security Council - and by India and Pakistan - that they
would decide, through a United Nations-supervised
plebiscite, whether they wished to join India or Pakistan.
On 26 June 1952, the late Prime Minister of India,
Mr. Nehru, stated in the Indian Parliament:
"If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir
said, ’We do not want to be with India’, we are
committed to accept that ... we will not send an
army against them".
But India has gone back on its agreement. It refuses
to implement the Security Council resolutions. It has sent
its army against the people of Kashmir. It has chosen to
crush the Kashmiri freedom movement by brute force.
Over the past five years, 40,000 Kashmiris have been
killed; thousands more are in Indian jails. Thousands of
Kashmiri women have been raped by Indian soldiers as
part of a policy to break the spirit of the Kashmiri people.
Whole villages and neighbourhoods have been put to the
torch. Torture is routine; disappearances are common;
and summary executions are standard practice in Kashmir.
India’s massive violations of human rights have been
well documented by impartial organizations and
observers, such as Amnesty International, Asia Watch, the
International Federation of Human Rights, the
International Commission of Jurists, Physicians for
Human Rights and many others. The world knows about
Indian barbarism in Kashmir. It is unfortunate that the
world has remained silent so far.
When faced with the possibility of censure by this
Assembly last year, India offered to resume talks with
Pakistan on Kashmir. In the talks held last January, India
displayed no desire for a settlement. It repeated the
fiction that Kashmir was an integral part of India. The
Indian Foreign Secretary told us that India had the right
to use as much force as it wanted to prevent Kashmir
from breaking away. When the issue was raised at the
Commission on Human Rights, India offered cosmetic
concessions to prevent the dispatch of a United Nations
fact-finding mission to Kashmir. Thereafter, it denied it
had made such a deal.
On the ground as well, India escalated its repression
as soon as international pressure was eased. The day
after we agreed to resume talks, India conducted a
massacre in Sopore, killing 50 Kashmiris. Once India
had concluded that the major Powers would overlook its
human rights violations because of the lure of trade and
profits in India, the repression against the Kashmiris and
the rhetoric against Pakistan sharply escalated.
11

Let me quote from the conclusions of the latest report
of Human Rights Watch/Asia, entitled: India: Continuing
Repression in Kashmir (August 1994, vol. 6, No. 8)
"As this report amply illustrates, the human
rights situation in Kashmir is getting worse at a time
when international pressure on the Indian Government
has all but ceased. Indeed, it could be argued that the
increase in deaths in custody and other abuses over
the last six months is not unrelated to the signals sent
by India’s one-time critics, notably the United States:
that human rights would no longer feature prominently
in bilateral discussions". (p. 20)
I have seen the statement made here yesterday by the
Commerce Minister of India. While I can fully subscribe
to the high ideals which he has propounded, I find myself
in the same situation as the distinguished philosopher the
late Mr. Bertrand Russell, when he observed that
"When one observes that the high idealism of the
Indian Government in international matters breaks
down completely with the question of Kashmir, it is
difficult to avoid a feeling of despair".
India preens itself and postures on the issue of
terrorism. Terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence
against innocent people. This must be condemned. By this
yardstick, India is guilty of daily and systematic acts of
terrorism against the Kashmiris. On the other hand, to
resist a foreign invader, to repel an army of occupation
engaged in murder, torture, rape and arson is not terrorism.
It is the exercise of self-defence. Self-defence is a right as
old as history; a right recognized in the United Nations
Charter. Distinguished representatives: If your son was
killed, and his body was thrown on your doorstep, how
would you respond? If your daughter was gang-raped by
the soldiers of an occupation army, what would be your
response? The Kashmiri people have the right - under
international law, under our Charter, under our resolutions
- to resist the Indian army of occupation by all the means
at their disposal. Their heroic struggle cannot be dismissed
as terrorism. It is a valiant freedom movement which
deserves the full support of the international community.
Pakistan is a party to the Kashmir dispute. Our people
are incensed at India’s brutal killing of our Kashmiri
brothers and sisters. We have, nevertheless, acted with
restraint. We have extended moral, political and diplomatic
support to the Kashmiris.

We have refrained from extending military help to them.
The Indian allegations of Pakistan’s support for the
so-called militants are designed to explain away the
resilience of the Kashmiri freedom movement, to erode
international sympathy and support for the Kashmiris and,
more ominously, to create perhaps a casus belli for a new
aggression against Pakistan.
The Kashmir crisis poses a growing threat to
international peace and security. On India’s independence
day this year, Prime Minister Rao demanded all of
Kashmir. In recent months, Indian politicians and
generals have threatened to launch attacks across the Line
of Control. India’s violations of the cease-fire have
escalated. During August alone, the United Nations
Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan
(UNMOGIP) recorded 142 complaints from Pakistan of
Indian cease-fire violations. Indian firing across the Line
of Control is specifically aimed at civilians. In the past
five years, over 600 civilians have been killed on our side
of the line. Pakistan’s self-restraint should not be
misunderstood. Indian aggression will have disastrous
consequences.
There are three priorities in addressing the Kashmir
question: first, to avert the threat of a conflict; secondly,
to ameliorate the suffering of the Kashmiri people; and,
thirdly, to open a credible diplomatic process designed to
achieve a just and peaceful solution to the Kashmir
dispute.
To arrest the threat to peace, I have addressed a
letter to the President of the Security Council proposing
that the United Nations Military Observer Group for India
and Pakistan should be substantially enlarged from its
present size of 35 observers. UNMOGIP should be
allowed to perform its mandate of patrolling both sides of
the Line of Control. This would help to stem cease-fire
violations, lower tensions and avoid the danger of a
conflict. The enlarged United Nations Observer Group
could also ascertain the veracity of India’s allegations that
Pakistan is providing military assistance to the Kashmiri
struggle. I hope that the Security Council will approve
our proposal. I hope that India will allow the United
Nations Observers to discharge their mandate of patrolling
on both sides of the Line of Control.
Secondly, to ameliorate the suffering of the Kashmiri
people, India should take some genuine steps to halt its
12

repression. We note with satisfaction that concern about
opinion at this Assembly has convinced India to release at
least two of the imprisoned Kashmiri leaders. This is a
victory for the Kashmiri freedom struggle. These aging and
ailing leaders will, we hope, be allowed to proceed abroad
for medical treatment. Shabir Ahmed Shah, who, like
Nelson Mandela, has spent 20 years in prison because of
his commitment to freedom, has not been released. The
world community must demand the release of this prisoner
of conscience.
There is no evidence that India has given up its
repressive strategy in Kashmir. This will become visible
once India lifts the Draconian emergency laws operative in
Kashmir, releases all the Kashmiris detained in Indian jails,
withdraws a part of its huge force from Kashmir, and
allows human rights organizations and humanitarian
agencies free access to the occupied Valley of Kashmir.
And we hope the international community will not forget
the victims of Indian atrocities. As in Bosnia and Rwanda,
the human rights violations which have been documented
and reported by impartial agencies must be investigated by
an international tribunal, and those who are found guilty
must be punished.
Finally, the efforts to promote a political settlement of
the Jammu and Kashmir dispute must take into account
three realities.
First, the Kashmiri freedom struggle cannot be crushed
by force. New Delhi’s forecasts of imminent success are
designed to deceive the Indian public and world public
opinion. The Indian army is caught in a quagmire.
Secondly, despite India’s assertions about Pakistan’s
interference, the Kashmiri struggle is obviously indigenous.
The Line of Control in Kashmir has 400 soldiers per
kilometre. The Indians have wired and mined the Line.
Nothing can get through. United Nations monitoring of the
Line can verify this. No external force can convince the
Kashmiris to offer the kind of sacrifices being made by
Kashmiri men, women and children in the cause of
freedom. For five years the Kashmiris have sustained their
struggle. They will continue their struggle even if Pakistan
wishes otherwise.
Thirdly, no credible Kashmiri group or leader accepts
a "solution" for Kashmir within the Indian Union. The
so-called political process advertised by India is wishful
thinking. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference, which
groups 34 Kashmiri political parties and organizations, has
rejected any settlement short of freedom from India.
Arriving in Srinagar after his release two days ago,
Abdul Ghani Lone said:
"Any elections to be held in Kashmir are to be
under the auspices of the United Nations and ... only
for the right of self-determination".
The other released Kashmiri leader, Syed Ali Shah Ghani,
said:
"Elections are no answer to the problem in Kashmir.
The people of the State do not accept anything short
of freedom. There will be no compromise in the
fight for self-determination".
India’s attempt to organize another fraudulent
election in Kashmir will prove abortive. As the Security
Council declared in 1957, such unilateral actions cannot
be considered as the basis for the "final disposition" of
Jammu and Kashmir. This can only be done through a
United Nations-supervised plebiscite prescribed by the
Security Council. A final settlement of the Kashmir
dispute will have to be based on the freely expressed
wishes of the Kashmiri people. In a paper transmitted to
India last February, Pakistan outlined the possible
modalities for ascertaining their wishes.
Pakistan welcomes the Secretary-General’s offer to
exert every possible effort to "facilitate the search for a
lasting solution to the Kashmir issue" (A/49/1, para. 542).
We hope India will also accept the Secretary-General’s
offer of good offices, as Pakistan has done. Pakistan is
prepared for talks with India on Kashmir. It was Pakistan
which initiated the Foreign Secretary-level talks. But
after six rounds of talks it is evident to us that India’s
ostensible desire for negotiations with Pakistan carries
little credibility while it continues the killing in Kashmir.
Pakistan does not reject dialogue, but it must not be a
dialogue of the deaf.
Kashmir is a dispute between India and Pakistan.
Every dispute between two States is bilateral. It is also
an international issue. The United Nations is obliged to
take cognizance of such disputes, specially when they
involve violations of the United Nations Charter and the
non-implementation of Security Council resolutions.
Kashmir is the key to unlocking the problems of
South Asia. Kashmir cannot be brushed aside any longer.
The conspiracy of silence must be broken. A resolution
of the Kashmir situation is required to avoid the danger
of a conflict. A solution of the Kashmir dispute will also
13

enhance the prospects of conventional arms control and
non-proliferation in South Asia.
My Government believes that to reduce the danger of
war in South Asia it is essential to promote a balance in
conventional arms between Pakistan and India, at the lowest
possible levels. India fields the third largest army in the
world. Almost all of it is deployed against Pakistan.
During the past decade India was the world’s largest arms
importer. Even during the Afghan war, India’s arms
acquisitions were over five times those of Pakistan.
Pakistan’s defence capabilities have deteriorated further
since 1990. Last year, while Pakistan’s defence spending
declined in real terms, India’s increased by 20 per cent.
Pakistan has made several proposals to India for
conventional arms control: negotiation of a mutually
agreed ratio of forces; measures to prevent the possibilities
of a surprise attack, adoption of agreed principles for
conventional arms control in South Asia.
Pakistan has no desire to expend more of its scarce
resources on arms. Meaningful arms control and
confidence-building measures could also help to stem the
danger of a nuclear arms race in our region.
Pakistan’s concern about nuclear proliferation in South
Asia precedes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As
early as the mid-1960s Pakistan had warned the world that
India would misuse nuclear cooperation. The late Prime
Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto proposed the creation of a
South Asia nuclear-free zone in 1972. In May 1974 India
exploded the bomb - ironically calling it the "Smiling
Buddha". Pakistan made every endeavour to counter
proliferation in South Asia. Apart from the nuclear-
weapon-free zone, we advanced subsequent proposals: for
the simultaneous signature of the NPT by India and
Pakistan, for acceptance of full-scope safeguards, for joint
renunciation of nuclear weapons, for a bilateral test-ban
treaty. All have been spurned by India. A proposal made
by the United States for a conference to promote
non-proliferation in South Asia, involving Russia, the
People’s Republic of China and the United States, as well
as India and Pakistan, was also rejected by New Delhi.
Pakistan has displayed responsibility and restraint in
the nuclear field. While we have acquired a certain
technological capability, we have not manufactured or
exploded a nuclear device. We have not deployed nuclear
weapons. We have not transferred sensitive technologies.
Twenty years after exploding its nuclear bomb, India
is about to take another fateful step towards proliferation:
the production and deployment of nuclear-capable ballistic
missiles. India is continuing work on its medium-range
AGNI missile as well as on intercontinental ballistic
missiles. It conducted user trials of the short-range
Prithvi this year. The Prithvi is a mobile missile. Once
it is produced, Pakistan will have to presume that it has
been deployed.
It is still not too late to prevent nuclear-weapon
proliferation in South Asia. Pakistan suggests two critical
steps to avoid this danger.
First, we suggest an agreement between India and
Pakistan not to develop or deploy ballistic missiles.
India’s production and deployment of the Prithvi will
invite a matching response from Pakistan. We have
advanced the concept of a Zero Missile Zone in South
Asia. This objective should be endorsed by the world
community.
Secondly, we suggest an agreement between India
and Pakistan not to manufacture or deploy nuclear
weapons. We hope India will respond positively to this
longstanding proposal. We hope it will agree, as a first
step, to issue a joint declaration with Pakistan renouncing
nuclear weapons.
It is unfortunate that India and Pakistan have never
succeeded in solving any of their disputes through
bilateral negotiations. Agreements reached on two major
problems - the Indus Waters Treaty and the Rann of
Kutch Accord - were made possible by the intercession of
a third party.
At this critical moment, when tensions are high and
peace is threatened in South Asia, the States Members of
the United Nations have a fundamental responsibility to
bring to bear their collective influence to promote
solutions to the interlinked problems of Kashmir,
conventional arms conflict and non-proliferation.
14

Pakistan desires good-neighbourly relations with India.
We want our people to devote their energies to the vital
task of nation-building. We want to banish from our midst
the spectre of rampant poverty. We want our people to live
with dignity. These goals cannot be attained unless we
resolve the Kashmir problem and others and build a climate
of trust and confidence in South Asia.
Pakistan has embarked on a new path of
socio-economic revival and growth. We have released the
dynamism of our private sector. We have created an
economic climate that is most hospitable to domestic and
foreign investment, and the results have been most
gratifying. Agreements for foreign investment of $4 billion
were concluded 10 days ago with a delegation led by the
United States Secretary of Energy. Additional investment
is likely in the energy, telecommunications, electronics and
other dynamic sectors of the Pakistan economy.
Today, Pakistan and all of South Asia have the chance
to break out of the cycle of poverty and underdevelopment.
We must not lose this chance. We must not let history pass
us by again.
We meet on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the
United Nations. The end of the cold war has released both
positive and negative forces that were long suppressed.
The principles of democracy, human rights and free markets
have triumphed. We have celebrated the entry into the
United Nations of many new States, proud and free. The
victory of democracy has been achieved in South Africa.
The victory of peace may well be realized in the Middle
East. Today, there is no threat of a global nuclear war.
Unprecedented affluence has been achieved in parts of the
world. Momentous technological breakthroughs have been
made. We now have the potential to achieve global peace,
address global problems and promote global prosperity.
But even as we celebrate these victories, the triumphs
of reason and statesmanship, we must confront the dark
forces of aggression, racism, fascism and bigotry, which
have again raised their head in many parts of the world.
It is, perhaps, not surprising that once the restraints of
the cold war structures were lifted, conflicts and disputes -
between States and within them - should have erupted like
an epidemic. The world community has been unprepared
to confront and repel aggression - witness Bosnia,
Azerbaijan and Kashmir. We have been unable to muster
the political will to stop genocide - witness Rwanda. We
are unprepared to pay the price to help the hungry and save
the deprived of the Earth - witness the Sahel.
The principal task of this session must be to revive
hope, to restore the confidence of our peoples, that we,
the States Members of the United Nations, acting
together, can build peace where it is broken; that we can
bring solace to those who are suffering; that we can
uphold and enforce justice where this is needed; and that
we can enlarge the horizons of prosperity to embrace
those teeming millions who are imprisoned in poverty.


France is especially pleased, Mr. President, to see the
General Assembly meeting under your authority. At the
end of a year marked by the passing of an extraordinary
statesman, President Houphouët-Boigny, your election has
given the international community another occasion to
stop and think about the situation in the African continent,
which in recent months has brought us both hope and
tragedy.
In South Africa, a decisive evolutionary process took
concrete form this year in the first elections there with
universal suffrage. We can now express our joy at seeing
that country take its rightful place in the concert of
nations. The choice of the South African people, inspired
by outstanding men to whom France wishes again to pay
a tribute, provides an example for all those who aspire to
democracy, reconciliation and peace and gives them hope.
In Rwanda, on the other hand, an unprecedented
tragedy has set the international community’s
responsibility squarely before it. The Assembly is
familiar with the efforts made by France to respond to
that tragedy and with the support it managed to find,
primarily among the African States. The operation that
was carried out enabled us to shelter more than 3 million
Rwandans from the fighting. None the less, we have
found it necessary once again to say the word "genocide",
which, almost 50 years after the birth of the United
Nations, amounts to saying that the worst is still possible.
During the darkest years of the Second World War,
General De Gaulle spoke of the need to establish a world
order that could guarantee the security of all, to make
rational use of all the world’s riches and to bring together
all the people on the face of the Earth. The time has
come for us to rediscover the ideal that inspired the
12

generation of the founders and to ask ourselves with clarity
what means are necessary to implement it.
Almost everywhere in the world we are seeing the
positive movement of nation-States into groups. France
has made the building up of Europe one of the pillars of its
foreign policy. How could it not, then, encourage the
formation of new areas of solidarity?
The experience of building Europe, which began 40
years ago, is a case in point. It has done more than just do
away with the age-old rivalries that had led to two world
wars. In the western part of the European continent,
economic integration and political cooperation have attained
a level that is unmatched in the world.
Since the iron curtain ceased to exist, we have been
primarily concerned with expanding to all parts of Europe
the zone of peace and prosperity resulting from that
process. This explains our desire to speed up the
integration of the Central and Eastern European
democracies into the European Union. It also accounts for
our efforts to organize a partnership with Russia and the
States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
The European Union, the Western European Union (WEU),
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
are all coooperating in the efforts towards this end.
Furthermore, it explains France’s initiative, taken up in turn
by the European Union, to establish a stability pact. This
is an ambitious exercise in preventive diplomacy, aimed at
resolving issues of relations between neighbours and of
minority groups, where such issues persist in the European
theatre.
Today Europe is a world power, as it demonstrated
during the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) negotiations, at which its efforts led, notably, to
the establishment of a World Trade Organization (WTO).
This is a major success that will benefit all its member
countries by putting an end to unilateral practices and
guaranteeing fair and free trade. Europe is thus assuming
its international responsibilities. It is actively supporting
the peace processes in the Middle East, in southern Africa
and elsewhere. It has long been involved in the struggle to
achieve development, particularly through the Lomé
Conventions. It provides substantial financing everywhere -
the most in the world - for peoples mired in humanitarian
crises. Its actions prove that a genuine regional power can
benefit the entire international community.
New regional groups of solidarity are gradually
taking shape in all parts of the world. In Africa, France
supports the principle of an OAU mechanism for
preventing, handling and settling conflicts. We are ready
to help set up a military mechanism to enable the OAU
to intervene more quickly, under United Nations control,
in the framework of peace-keeping operations.
In South-East Asia, the countries of the Association
of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are working to
strengthen their economic ties and to establish confidence-
building measures to reinforce the stability of the region.
France, which through the European Union was present
at ASEAN’s regional forum on security, held recently in
Bangkok, takes a special interest in the beneficial effects
this process should have on the countries of the Indo-
Chinese peninsula.
On the American continent, the entry into force of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
adds to the dynamism of existing regional organizations,
old and new.
Thus, perhaps, there may be such a group in the
Middle East as well, where progress in the peace process
allows us to envision the development of intensive
regional cooperation. The organization of all kinds of ties
among the countries concerned will help to establish
peace in the region, as will the search for solutions to the
political problems that are still pending. France can
therefore only repeat that we hope to see the boycotts
finally ended. Our financial support for the peace
process, as well as our active participation in the
multilateral negotiations, including participation in such
ultra-sensitive areas as regional security, reflect this very
same conviction.
Above and beyond that, France would like to see
Europe organize a forum for cooperation involving all the
Mediterranean States. We have, on the initiative of
Egypt, already made a contribution to the coming into
being of the Mediterranean Forum, which recently held its
first meeting in Alexandria. We will make this one of the
main goals of the French presidency of the European
Union in the first semester of the coming year.
Everywhere, then, the progress being made in
processes leading to integration and the establishment of
regional frameworks for cooperation reflects positive
trends. These organizations, however, have neither the
right nor the capability to do everything. It is the United
Nations that is and must remain the sole forum for
13

organizing peace and solidarity throughout the world. It is
up to the United Nations and to that Organization alone to
ensure international equilibrium since, in the last resort, it
alone has the power to decide on enforcement measures or
on the use of force. Regional organizations do contribute
to peace and international stability. They may indeed fulfil
missions in preventive diplomacy, but they must then be
inspired by the principles enshrined in the United Nations.
As regards peace-keeping, Chapter VIII of our Charter
expressly provides that the United Nations may, in certain
circumstances, employ the means at the disposal of the
regional organizations.
But when conflicts become exacerbated, when a crisis
calls for a mandatory solution, the Charter requires us to
turn to the Security Council, the sole authority having
power to decide on enforcement measures or on the use of
force other than for legitimate self-defence. The
justification for such measures may come only from the
will of the international community, and that is why the
Security Council, in our view, must exert its authority and
control at all stages of operations it may decide upon:
conception and approval of the mandate, the major phases
of implementation and the monitoring of implementation.
The adoption of a system of mandatory sanctions
against States that breach international legality is also a
prerogative of the Security Council. But, and we are very
keenly aware of this, this concerns serious, exceptional
measures whose purpose must be precisely defined to bring
pressure to bear on a Government to change its attitude.
That is the objective in such instances. France therefore
proposes that in future, when a resolution imposing
sanctions upon a Member State is to be voted upon, three
conditions must be met. These are, that all other
diplomatic avenues have been explored without success;
that the Council resolution state explicitly what actions the
targeted State should take in order for the sanctions to be
lifted; and that the maintenance of the sanctions should be
subject to regular review in good faith.
In the realm of disarmament, our Organization is once
again the sole forum where international commitments may
be entered into. Given this perspective, France ascribes
especial importance to the speedy ratification of the
Convention banning chemical weapons - the first
multilateral disarmament treaty - and thereby its entry into
force in 1995. France hopes to see our Organization make
progress towards strengthening the Convention banning
biological weapons and to see new efforts made to ban
anti-personnel mines. I was particularly pleased to hear
President Clinton endorse this very concept in his recent
statement to the Assembly. Finally, the requirement for
non-proliferation, which North Korea’s attitude compels
us to take especially seriously, must lead, at the 1995
Conference, to the unconditional and indefinite renewal of
the non-proliferation Treaty. In this same vein, France
reaffirms its support for the decision taken by the General
Assembly last year to begin negotiations on a
comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty that would be
internationally and effectively verifiable.
Over recent years, crisis prevention and crisis
management have absorbed the greater part of our efforts.
We have thus imperceptibly strayed somewhat from what
was a major chapter in the history of the United Nations:
the North-South dialogue, the major conferences on trade
and development. France thus proposes that the United
Nations restore development and the struggle to achieve
it to their central place in its work.
It is not a question of repeating what was done in
past decades. Our approach to development has changed.
The work pursued under the auspices of the United
Nations and its agencies has helped to call attention to the
interdependence of the economic, demographic, cultural
and social ramifications of the development question.
That is why the main theme conferences devoted to the
environment, to population, to social development and to
the status of women are now once again the instruments
to be used to mobilize for development. Given this
perspective, France will organize in Paris before the end
of this year the signing of the Convention on the struggle
against desertification, as well as the Aids Summit.
The United Nations alone is capable of ensuring that
all these efforts be pursued consistently. It has the
necessary legitimacy and authority, inasmuch as all the
main institutions concerned, including what are known as
the Bretton Woods institutions, are part and parcel of the
United Nations system. We therefore consider it
necessary to strengthen the links that unite all these
separate bodies. In particular, we should ensure that the
policies of adjustment carried out under World Bank or
International Monetary Fund auspices take due account of
the social requirements of development. France is
committed to doing so in working with its partners, and
has recently agreed to a substantial effort to help the franc
zone countries overcome the short-term effects of the
devaluation of the CFA franc.
The Economic and Social Council should be the
place for ensuring coherence and consistency within these
organizations. France therefore proposes that the next
14

annual meeting of the Council in Geneva should be an
opportunity for the ministers of Member States personally
to undertake a complete examination of the policies
followed by these various institutions with regard to
development, and especially to study specific ways by
which they might work together better.
The Secretary-General’s efforts for renewal and
clarification through the "Agenda for Development"
naturally form part of this global approach. The European
Union, for its part, has presented recommendations in its
aide-mémoire that it believes would enhance that draft.
France intends to take an active part in General Assembly
discussions on this subject.
The role of our Organization is no less critical where
humanitarian action is involved. France intervenes
regularly on the ground alongside United Nations agencies,
and we should like to pay a tribute to the outstanding work
done by the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, the World Food Programme and UNICEF,
working under tragically difficult circumstances. We were
able to appreciate in full measure their usefulness as the
Rwandan crisis unfolded. We have had confirmation that
the United Nations alone is able to coordinate such difficult
operations. Naturally, there is need for further progress:
in shortening the Organization’s reaction time, and in better
allocating tasks among agencies. But the reform that began
three years ago with the establishment of the Department
for Humanitarian Affairs is beginning to bear fruit. We are
indeed on the right track.
Lastly, France would like to stress the underlying
principle of international law: the universality of human
rights, a principle which may not be challenged in the name
of any religious, cultural or national specificities. I am all
the more ready to say that because France is itself keen on
preserving its identity and intent on defending it. However
different people may be, they share the same rights. The
very existence of our Organization rests on this principle.
France has consistently urged the acceleration of
progress in the field of human rights, by seeking
recognition that certain principles must be applied to States’
actions. I welcome the steps taken by the High
Commissioner for Human Rights since his designation and
express the hope that the resources made available to him
will be commensurate with his mission.
The establishment of the International Tribunal for war
crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia is a significant
event. Until very recently there had been some scepticism
about this initiative. Today, thanks to the resolve of the
Tribunal’s judges and prosecutor, it is in place and
beginning to examine actual cases being submitted to it.
France supports these efforts and hopes that comparable
crimes of genocide that may have been committed in
Rwanda will also lead to the establishment of an
international legal body.
The juridical work of the United Nations extends to
other areas as well. It is designed to address matters of
international trade with a view to making it both freer and
fairer. In this regard, I have already expressed our
satisfaction at the establishment of the World Trade
Organization. The signing a few weeks ago of an act that
completes the monumental work done by the United
Nations on the law of the sea is also a historic event.
If our Organization is to be able to carry out the
many difficult tasks which I have just described, we must
constantly work to reform it and adjust the means
available to it - in the first place, by strengthening the
means available to the Secretary-General. On behalf of
France, I should like to pay a tribute here to the
Secretary-General - and this is not a mere formality. We
have the good fortune to have at the helm of our
Organization a man who, thanks to his ceaseless efforts
over the past two years, has made progress possible in all
areas: preventive diplomacy, crisis management,
development, the running of the institution. We must
therefore give him the means to continue his work.
This is true, too, of peace-keeping missions. Recent
experience has shown the need to make military forces
available to the Secretary-General on very short notice in
the implementation of Security Council resolutions. To
that end, France wishes to develop a network of stand-by
forces. On the initiative of the President of the Republic,
we have offered to make a standing unit of several
thousand men available to the United Nations. It is also
essential for the Secretary-General to be able to control
the evolution of peace-keeping missions. To that end,
France recommends systematic recourse to the designation
of a special representative.
The Secretary-General must be able to rely on the
assistance of prominent and particularly competent
persons. With regard to management, last year’s
establishment of the post of Inspector General marked an
important step forward. We expect further progress to be
made this year with the establishment of a committee on
budgetary discipline, as I proposed last year from this
very rostrum. Lastly, as our Prime Minister has
15

suggested, France proposes that someone be appointed on
a permanent basis to the Secretary-General’s Office who
would deal with the question of the non-proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Our Assembly is the most universal of international
institutions. Its prestige and authority must therefore be
strengthened. To that end, France is making three
proposals.
First, sessions of the Fifth Committee must be held
more closely together in order to ensure better control over
our finances, particularly with regard to peace-keeping
operations.
Secondly, there must be more frequent missions of the
Assembly to deal with certain crisis situations, as was done
in the cases of Haiti and South Africa. The financial
reform of the United Nations, which has been discussed for
several years now, must be set in motion. Following the
work of the high-level Working Group established last year
to consider the question of enlarging the Security Council,
France proposes that a group, led by the President of the
General Assembly, be set up this year to make proposals
that could lead to the financial reform of our Organization.
Thirdly, we must work to achieve the enlargement of
the Security Council. This question has already been the
focus of in-depth discussions that have clarified the
positions at issue. For its part, France has no panacea to
offer, but it believes that the solution must answer the dual
imperative of efficacy and representativeness.
On the one hand, if the Security Council is to function
efficiently, given its tasks and the circumstances in which
it intervenes, its capacity to take important decisions
quickly must clearly be maintained. But the Council must
also allow for full public debate in reaching its decisions.
Hence, we are in favour of the Council’s holding official
meetings - without of course giving up its informal
consultations - to hear Members of the Organization and
talk with them before taking positions on the important
questions before it. We believe that this is the appropriate
response to the demand for transparency made by many
delegations.
On the other hand, the Council’s authority and thus its
efficacy also depend on its representativeness. We
therefore favour the enlargement of the Council to include
new permanent and non-permanent members. France
confirms its support for the desires of Germany and Japan
to accede to permanent membership. It also considers that
the representatives of the developing world should in no
case find themselves marginalized by any future reform.
The United Nations exists and acts only through the
will of its Member States. Though that is obvious it
bears repeating. Any failure of our Organization is in
fact the failure of those same States - that is, as my
colleague from the United Kingdom stated earlier today,
our own failure. Its efficacy depends above all on the
degree of commitment each of us brings to it.
Without the commitment of States there can be no
solution to the financial crisis of the United Nations.
Each of us is aware of the gravity of our Organization’s
financial situation. Each of us also knows that this
critical situation is not the result solely of the sum total of
expenditures. The real source of our crisis is well known:
it is the negligence of States which do not pay their
contributions or do not pay them in full.
Of course, we welcome the fact that one of the main
contributor countries has decided to pay a substantial part
of its arrears, thereby bringing temporary relief to the
Organization’s financial situation. We can understand
why some Member States are requesting that the scale of
contributions be adjusted in order better to reflect real
abilities to pay. France hopes that at the present session
the General Assembly will address the revision of this
scale in accordance with the principle of fairness and in
a spirit of consensus.
But fairness also requires swifter and more
substantial reimbursement to States that provide the troops
necessary to peace-keeping operations and are therefore
the primary victims of late payments. The situation in
which some in fact pay twice while others do not pay at
all must come to an end. France therefore asks once
again that a working group be established and mandated
to propose all the measures that can encourage tardy
States to pay their arrears.
And without the commitment of States there cannot
be any solution to international instability. France has
made considerable efforts to help resolve crises that have
threatened the international order over the past few years.
It has been the first and is now the second largest troop
contributor to the United Nations. It has well-known
experience in the three areas of preventive diplomacy,
peace-keeping and humanitarian action. Obviously,
France does not wish to lecture anyone, but its own
commitment does permit it to say that the readiness of
16

States does not meet the demands made today upon our
Organization.
Need we cite all the circumstances in which the non-
participation or temporizing of States has compromised
action mandated by the Security Council? How many
weeks did we have to wait last year for the military
arrangements provided for under Security Council
resolution 824 (1993) on safe areas in Bosnia were finally
in place? We all remember that, during the Rwandan
crisis, the decision taken by the Security Council in mid-
May to strengthen the United Nations Assistance Mission
for Rwanda had yet to be implemented two months later.
Rather than dwelling on these disappointments,
however, France wishes to pay tribute to all those States
that have shown, by their commitment and sense of
international solidarity, that the United Nations can prove
that it is effective. The African countries that chose to
share with us the risks involved in the operation in Rwanda;
the United States, which is working in Haiti to effect the
implementation of Security Council resolution 940 (1994);
the States whose soldiers stand with ours in the United
Nations Protection Force: it is thanks to them that there
remains a chance for peace in the former Yugoslavia,
delayed only by the stubbornness of the Bosnian Serb
leaders. France expects that the greatest of firmness will be
used in dealing with these most recent warmongers. But
the change in position of the other parties, and in particular
the authorities in Belgrade, makes it incumbent upon us to
continue to seek a negotiated settlement. In this spirit, we
appeal to Presidents Izetbegovic, Tudjman and Milosevic,
who have all accepted the peace plan for Bosnia, to resume
the direct dialogue necessary for a comprehensive
settlement. Otherwise, the international community must be
prepared to propose the terms of a comprehensive, just and
lasting settlement, taking into account the legitimate
interests of the various communities that made up the
former Yugoslavia and must enjoy equal rights.
Bringing to trial those responsible for war crimes is a
moral imperative to which France is committed. We must
above all make the people in the former Yugoslavia
understand that there are prospects for the future other than
endless violence and vengeance. That is France’s message.
That is the reason for the commitment of our soldiers in
Bosnia and, sadly, the sacrifice of several dozen of them.
There is nothing pre-ordained about failure to get involved,
or inertia. There is a strong will at the heart of our
Organization. Therefore France appeals to all Member
States to mark the fiftieth anniversary with a genuine
renewal of commitment.
Voices are being raised today urging our
Organization to show greater realism in defining the
missions that it has to carry out. In appealing to Member
States to mobilize, France wishes to reaffirm its
unwavering conviction that, in the face of the challenges
to the international community, realism consists not in
being less ambitious but in ensuring that we have the
means fully to achieve our ambitions. They must not be
limited to what seems possible; they must be to make
possible what is obviously necessary. It is in this spirit
that France will continue actively to play its role within
the United Nations.


It is with great pleasure that I join the previous speakers
in congratulating you, Sir, on your election to the
presidency of this Assembly. The great African country
that you represent, Côte d’Ivoire, has always played an
active and constructive role in our Organization. We are
delighted to have you presiding over our proceedings.
8

My German ministerial colleague, Mr. Klaus Kinkel,
spoke this morning on behalf of the European Union. The
views of my delegation are faithfully reflected in his
statement and, consequently, there is no need for me to
address the positions he has outlined.
Five years ago the talk was of a new international
order. The events that shook Eastern Europe at that time
led us to believe that the old bipolar world had expired and
that another order was bound to take its place. For some,
the reaction to the aggression against Kuwait marked the
beginning of this new phase. Reality did not live up to our
hopes. Today we have come to understand that the
equilibrium based on a bipolar world did not have a
"natural successor" and that it is up to us to build a new
one, little by little, through trial and error.
Of course, a new equilibrium is emerging in several
parts of the world.
First, there is the highly symbolic case of the Middle
East. Even if implementation of the Washington and Cairo
agreements is proving as arduous as was expected, every
new stage constitutes an important step towards lasting
peace. The historic rapprochement between Israel and
Jordan strengthens this prospect.
The new South Africa, too, is facing immense
challenges, but at the same time it has become a beacon of
hope for the entire African continent.
The strengthening of democracy and the progress
made in regional integration in Latin America seem to us
yet another meaningful evolution. A number of countries
in this region have now found the way towards sustainable
economic development.
The same holds true for Asia, where, moreover, a
readiness for dialogue now exists. The regional Forum
launched by the Association of South-East Asian Nations
(ASEAN), contacts on the Korean peninsula and, at another
level, the dialogue between the two sides of the Formosa
Strait all contribute towards a new climate of confidence.
While preparing to welcome four new members, the
European Union has signed cooperation agreements with
the majority of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe
that might ultimately lead to full membership.
Simultaneously, new geostrategic ties are being forged with
Russia.
The same will for dialogue is reflected in the
discussion of major issues that concern the future of our
Organization, such as reform of the Security Council.
Even if divergences of opinion remain on various points,
the sense of common interest prevails.
Belgium’s major concern remains the achievement
of a more representative Council without diminishing its
decision-making capacity. We prefer therefore to avoid
ambitious projects that would give privileged status to
several "regional Powers" according to imprecise criteria
but would not reinforce the Council’s ability to shoulder
its responsibilities.
Why not, as a first step, adapt the Council’s
membership on the basis of unanimously agreed criteria?
The international community could, as a measure with
immediate advantageous effect, grant an additional
non-permanent seat to the regions that consider
themselves to be underrepresented and confer permanent
member status on those two economic Powers whose
positive contribution to world affairs has long been
recognized.
These steps, however encouraging, do not by
themselves constitute a new international agreement.
Progress and the readiness for rapprochement are by no
means universal: Central Africa and Bosnia and
Herzegovina are cases in point.
The situation in Rwanda is uppermost in our minds.
The threat it represents of destabilization in Burundi and
the neighbouring countries has become a constant cause
for worry in recent months. However deep the hatred
born of the recent or the distant past, reconciliation is the
only alternative. We appeal to the leaders and prominent
citizens of these countries to unite their efforts to broaden
the base of political power and to stand firm against
extremists. Only when these conditions are met can
emergency aid make way for durable reconstruction.
Naturally, my country will contribute to each stage of this
renewal.
The civil war in the former Yugoslavia has cast first
Europe and then the entire world into profound disarray.
Yet for more than three years now, we have been
working relentlessly to put an end to this tragedy. The
United Nations Protection Force has become one of the
largest peace-keeping missions ever set up by our
Organization. The United Nations and the European
Union have worked together tirelessly to find a negotiated
solution. The main Powers have now added their weight
9

to these efforts. Let us hope that the latest attempt by the
European Union, the United States and the Russian
Federation will finally succeed in halting the bloodshed.
From this rostrum I call upon the parties to seize this
opportunity: put an end to madness and let peace return.
I have just touched upon two cases of civil war where
racial hatred has led to particularly inhumane behaviour.
More than ever, we must remain unyielding when human
rights are systematically violated. We must aim to banish
every regime that is based on practices of "ethnic
cleansing".
So that this lesson may never be forgotten, Belgium
favours the establishment of an international penal
jurisdiction and expresses the wish that the international
community do whatever is necessary to render it
operational as soon as possible. In the meantime, we
believe that the Tribunal created to judge the war crimes
perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia will stand as a
valuable precedent, which we would like to see extended to
the crimes committed in Rwanda as soon as possible.
Along the same lines, my Government welcomes the
appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The operational initiatives launched by Mr. Ayala Lasso -
sending human rights monitors to Rwanda, for instance -
have received early and concrete support from Belgium,
among others. I am convinced that Mr. Ayala Lasso’s
actions will strengthen the respect for human rights and
promote a successful dialogue among political leaders and
human rights activists in every part of the world. This
dialogue will take into account the differing approaches
inspired by various cultures and religions, but in my
opinion, it would lose its meaning if it were to compromise
on the one essential point: the respect owed to the physical
and moral integrity of every human being.
For Belgium, the crisis in Rwanda has marked the
international agenda. In the wake of the genocide, death
lashed out blindly at a population in exile, pushing back the
limits of horror already reached in Bosnia and Somalia.
My fellow citizens were deeply troubled by the ruin of so
many efforts of development, the failure of so many
attempts at reconciliation. The savage killing of 10 Belgian
"blue helmets", who were among the 100 United Nations
peace-keepers slain since the beginning of this year,
highlights the unmistakable fragility of peace-keeping
operations. I believe the best way to honour all those who
lost their lives is by reflecting in particular upon the limits
and possibilities of international action.
In this regard, the common experience in which
Belgium took part - in the former Yugoslavia, in Somalia
and in Rwanda - has enabled us, sometimes in tragic
circumstances, to make a number of observations for
future use. I intend to group them around four principles
that seem to me essential. First: peace-keeping
operations cannot be improvised. Second: once decided,
they should be given the means to achieve their aims.
Third: for these means to function fully, we should
ensure their operational and political coherence. And,
finally, as long as the security of the personnel involved
cannot be guaranteed, it will become increasingly difficult
to find troop contributors for peace-keeping missions,
which will thereby reduce them to a purely theoretical
instrument.
First, the principle of "non-improvisation" implies
two things.
The first is that the Organization must at all times be
able to mobilize the necessary means for a peace-keeping
operation and to this end rely on the solidarity of all its
members. This means that it is essential to reinforce the
military peace-keeping capacity of the Organization. In
the absence of a United Nations multilateral force that can
be deployed quickly, generalized offers of stand-by troops
and equipment and standardization of equipment and
procedures are objectives we must pursue diligently. To
this end I have sent the Secretary-General a list of
possible Belgian contributions which could be made
available for peace-keeping operations.
The second implication is that, even though
solidarity remains the basis for conceiving and
implementing peace-keeping, this solidarity cannot be
blind and automatic. Each specific operation must be the
result of careful consideration.
The launching of a new peace-keeping operation
should only be envisaged and seriously considered when
all other means of solving the crisis have been exhausted,
including at the regional level. Chapter VI, as well as
"An Agenda for Peace", offer a wide choice of
instruments for solving a crisis through negotiation,
arbitration, and so on. Those who forget that
peace-keeping operations are not a panacea do the
Organization a disservice and often unwittingly contribute
to making situations worse rather than solving them.
Once it has been decided by the Security Council, a
peace-keeping operation becomes everybody’s business.
All Member States must contribute according to their
10

possibilities and as circumstances dictate. Of course,
Member States must retain the sovereign right to decide
whether or not to participate in a given peace-keeping
operation, but in so doing, they should look beyond the
criterion of national interest.
All States should cooperate actively with a view to the
success of the operation by facilitating its movements,
supplies, reinforcements and the prepositioning of reserve
troops. All States should use their diplomatic influence to
help the Secretary-General achieve the political objectives
of an operation. And, finally, all States must adhere to
their financial obligations with respect to an operation.
Secondly, a peace-keeping operation must be based on
the consent of the parties, appropriate flexibility and
adequate information.
Every operation must be based on consensus among
the States legitimately involved. The conflicting parties
themselves must agree to the deployment and aims of the
operation, except in the case of an obvious humanitarian
catastrophe. In this all-too-frequent case, the Security
Council’s decision to act outside the framework of the
traditional mandate and disregard the three usual
conditions - in other words, agreement by the parties, the
political process and a cease-fire - must be taken with great
care. The Council must express this decision clearly in the
mandate and accept all its consequences.
An operation must at all times have the strength
necessary to execute its mission safely. This rule is of
utmost importance. It implies, to begin with, sufficient
manpower and flexible rules of engagement to respond to
the unexpected. It also implies adequate equipment to fulfil
the mandate and to react to emergencies. The deployment
of a military reserve in the vicinity has already proven its
usefulness, for example, in Somalia. It is a precautionary
measure we should envisage more often in the future. As
a rule, a force subject to local provocation must always
have the choice between evacuating or remaining in place,
between retreat or riposte.
But the use of force is not the first option to be
considered in order to discourage resistance to a
peace-keeping operation. Education and persuasion will do
miracles among populations that are often ill-informed or
even misguided about the objectives of a peace-keeping
operation. Experience has shown that it is absolutely
necessary to develop a coherent information strategy. Each
peace-keeping operation should be provided with an
information unit and a radio transmitter to broadcast its
message. Moreover, the ability to neutralize hostile
propaganda sources should be put to use each time this
propaganda threatens the safety of part of a population or
United Nations personnel.
The third consideration is that the cohesion of the
command and control structures and consultations on a
regular basis with troop-contributing countries are
conditions essential to the success of an operation.
The military and political control of an operation
must rest with the United Nations or with a duly
mandated body. This principle has two consequences.
Any attempt by the Commander of the Force or of
a small contingent to report directly only to national
authorities will reduce the cohesion of the multilateral
operation. The flexibility required by a commander in the
field to deal with the unexpected, however, is a different
matter.
When an action is undertaken by a regional or
multilateral force it must be authorized by the Security
Council. However, this authorization should not reduce
the operational autonomy of the commanders of such an
operation. Those who take the risk must be in control.
Moreover, for each operation a consultation
committee should be created in which troop contributors,
the members of the Security Council and the Secretariat
can meet at regular intervals. This committee will enable
the contributors better to assist the Secretariat in
managing the operation.
It will also generate a real dialogue between
contributors and the members of the Council, each time
the latter prepare to take a decision which modifies the
basic conditions of the operation. Contributors often have
a better knowledge of the situation in the field and are
best placed to judge whether a new task is feasible or
acceptable. Without troop contributors the resolutions of
the Council would remain ineffectual.
As a fourth and last consideration, the security of the
blue helmets is as much a concern of the contributing
countries as of the Secretariat. The prosecution of those
who attack the peace-keeping forces must be efficiently
organized.
The responsibility of a Government for its contingent
does not stop with its dispatch to the field of operations.
The contributing country has the right to watch over the
11

safety of its compatriots at all times. Ultimately, security
must be the decisive factor for a contributing country to
continue or suspend its participation in a peace-keeping
operation.
It seems normal, therefore, that a troop contributor
should be entitled to equip its contingent from the start with
sufficient defensive armament. Later, when unexpected
circumstances place the contingent in a situation of real
danger, the Security Council and the Secretary-General
must immediately adapt the mandate and, if necessary, the
rules of engagement to that situation.
It is a fundamental duty of the United Nations to
organize the international prosecution of those who attack
United Nations personnel. The impunity granted so far to
the perpetrators of such crimes gives rise to an uneasy
feeling and undermines the credibility of the United Nations
in the eyes of world opinion. The authority of our
Organization over those whom it is trying to reconcile is
negatively affected by this, and the Governments that
contribute troops are increasingly worried. In our opinion,
it is essential to speed up the adoption of a convention on
the security of United Nations personnel, as well as of the
investigations and the effective prosecution of those who
attack our personnel.
I hope that these thoughts that I have shared with the
Assembly will contribute to improving the procedures and
reinforcing the means put into effect by our Organization to
face up to the new situations that it needs to tackle. In
fact, these changes deserve to be formalized when any
revision of the Charter takes place. The functioning of the
peace-keeping operations would be greatly improved by
this.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:
"Amongst the laws that govern human societies, there
is one that seems clearer and more precise than all
others. If men are to remain civilized, or become so,
the art of association must grow and improve at the
same rate as the equality of their conditions".
Though this "art of association" affects civil societies in the
first place, it is also, and more than ever, a concern of our
society of Governments. Launching peace-keeping
operations is without doubt a most generous expression of
this art of acting together.
In the meantime, the fact that we have been able to
multiply peace-keeping operations in difficult political,
financial and material circumstances is nothing short of
miraculous and prompts us to pay tribute to all the people
who have been working tirelessly within the Secretariat as
well as in the field.