It is my
pleasure to congratulate Mr. Harri Holkeri on his
assumption of the presidency of the fifty-fifth session
of the General Assembly, and I should like to convey to
him our best wishes for a successful accomplishment of
his tasks. I should also like to express our high esteem
to his predecessor, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Namibia, who conducted the work of the previous
session with notable skill.
The Millennium Summit came to an end just a
few days ago. From a certain point of view, it was an
occasion for reviewing the state of international
relations following the collapse of the bipolar
international order. We have taken note of the
increasing number of States complaining of the
unipolar control over international affairs and the
extent of the current and future dangers that this
situation can give rise to.
More than 10 years ago, Iraq drew attention to the
first signs of many dangers and basic problems that
have since grown worse and become the focus of a
significant part of the discussions of the Millennium
Summit. In February 1990, President Saddam Hussein
warned against the grave dangers resulting from the
unilateral control assumed by the United States of
America and its headlong rush to impose its hegemony
on the world in general and on the Arab Gulf region
and other Arab countries in particular. He also warned
against the dangers posed by that State's recourse to
illegitimate and immoral ways and means of achieving
that goal, including the use of brute force; the exercise
of pressure; political and economic blackmail;
interference in the internal affairs of States; the
fomenting of racial, religious and sectarian conflicts;
and the use of international institutions to serve the
interests of American policy.
Iraq also drew attention to the following
situations at an early stage.
The first was the exploitation by the
industrialized countries, the United States in particular,
of scientific and technological progress for political
purposes, with a view to engulfing all other countries
8
of the world in a wave of capitalistic globalization,
claiming that globalization is an inevitable fate to
which all must submit, regardless of the negative
consequences and dangers it entails for the lives of the
vast majority of humankind.
Secondly, it drew attention to the adoption of a
double standard as far as political positions are
concerned, and it noted an indifference to the legal and
political standards imposed by internationally binding
agreements, where a balance is struck between rights
and obligations in the process of the coexistence of
interests among various countries, without any
distinction or discrimination.
Thirdly, it noted the prevalence of the logic of
“power and opportunity” in the exploitation of United
Nations mechanisms to ensure the adoption of
resolutions supporting the selfish political aims of one
country or a few countries at the expense of common
principles in international relations, without first giving
consideration to obligations undertaken under the
Charter of the United Nations and the principles of
justice and equity — hence the recourse to mandatory
embargoes and comprehensive economic sanctions as a
goal in and of itself, as well as the continuation of the
policies of starvation and destruction of the economies
of various countries and societies.
Fourthly, it drew attention to the imposition on
the international community of unilateral policies
through mechanisms and arrangements outside the
international system, and to the fact that such
arrangements were treated as substitutes for the United
Nations in those cases where the hegemonic Powers,
headed by the United States, expected to meet with
strong opposition by the United Nations to those
unilaterally determined policies, as we saw in the case
of the aggression launched by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) against the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.
Fifthly, it noted the phenomenon of the forcible
adjustment and adaptation of established rules of
international law to serve the unilateral policies of the
hegemonic Powers, headed by the United States of
America, through the imposition of strange and bizarre
interpretations of the contents of such rules, or even
total disregard for them when said Powers were unable
to impose their strange interpretations thereon. An
example of this dangerous phenomenon can be found
in the feverish attempts to minimize the importance of
the principles of State sovereignty, national
independence and non-interference in the internal
affairs of States.
Sixthly, it noted the phenomenon of evading
responsibility in cases where the assumption of
responsibility would not be profitable from an
economic point of view, as is the case in questions
related to environmental pollution, the expansion of the
sphere of poverty in the world and the obstruction of
the development of the States of the South, all of which
are cases where the responsibility of the advanced
industrialized countries is quite obvious.
The dangers, challenges and negative phenomena
to which I have referred, as have many other speakers
in the course of this general debate, have led to broad
reflection on the solutions needed to overcome those
difficulties and problematic issues. Iraq is of the view
that the starting point is for United Nations actions to
be a true expression of the will of all peoples and
nations. That is how the Charter of the United Nations
was drawn up, in order to establish a system of
collective security based on common collective
interests. The stability and effectiveness of the system
of collective security is based on cooperation among
partners and on the basis of specific obligations, not
unilateral action and domination, as is the case today.
The right of nations and peoples to live in peace and
stability is the essential requirement for the
maintenance of international peace and security. This
right can be guaranteed only if it is firmly linked to the
right to economic and social development and to
freedom from any kind of pressure or interference.
This noble collective goal can be achieved only
by upholding the United Nations system and by
reforming and developing that system in order to invest
it with the ability and competence to achieve that goal.
Reform is particularly called for in the case of the
Security Council, which must respect its obligations
towards the community of States and must comply with
the correct interpretation of the purposes and principles
of the Charter in the performance of its functions and
the use of its powers. It is also necessary to restore the
role of the General Assembly in the maintenance of
international peace and security, so as to ensure the
necessary balance if the Security Council fails to
assume its basic responsibilities under the Charter
because of the unilateral and abusive exercise of its
powers.
9
The wave of capitalistic globalization sweeping
over today's world continues to widen the gap between
the rich and the poor in the world. This dangerous
phenomenon requires a forceful call to lay the
foundations of a true international partnership in order
to re-establish economic and social justice at both the
international and national levels, upholding the
principle of equitable sharing by all of the fruits of
scientific and technological progress, and stopping rich
countries from using science and technology as tools
for imposing their policies of exploitation on the
countries and peoples of the world. A dynamic
partnership between the countries of the North and the
countries of the South is fundamentally opposed to the
logic of domination and unilateral power and to the
transformation of science and technology into political
tools for the subjugation of others. On the other hand,
the call for democratization within countries will
remain spurious unless its advocates adhere to a
democratic course at the level of dealings with other
States and with international organizations.
Furthermore, the call for respect for international law
and its primacy at the national level will remain devoid
of credibility unless it is associated with the kind of
conduct that calls for respect for the letter and spirit of
the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of
international law, and with the possibility of recourse
to international judiciary bodies, with regard to the
interpretation and application of legal provisions to
ensure a delicate balance between powers and
responsibilities, rights and obligations. Any affirmation
of respect for human rights should not overlook the
fact that civil, political, economic, social and cultural
rights should, as a matter of equal importance and
urgency, enjoy the same respect. Nor should such an
affirmation overlook the fact that the world is
characterized by cultural and civilizational diversity,
and that the cultural and social assumptions tacitly
accepted by a given culture cannot be imposed on other
nations and peoples.
What I have just stated does not belong to the
realm of theory. We in Iraq continue to suffer from the
domination and abusive actions of the hegemonic
powers headed by the United States of America. Our
deep faith in the righteousness of our position explains
the steadfastness shown by our country and our people
in the face of the might of the unipolar Power.
The comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq
have entered their eleventh year. By all standards, these
sanctions amount to genocide and involve a brutal
application of collective punishment and revenge
against an entire people. There is no longer any doubt
that these sanctions constitute a continued, flagrant
violation of the United Nations Charter, of
international law and of international humanitarian law.
This matter has been confirmed by the reports of
United Nations agencies and humanitarian and human
rights organizations. The most recent testimony to that
effect is to be found in the working paper adopted by
the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights at its fifty-second session, held in
Geneva from 31 July to 25 August 2000. The paper
affirmed that the comprehensive sanctions against Iraq
are unequivocally illegal under existing international
humanitarian law and human rights laws.
It is well known that both the United States and
Great Britain claim that the oil-for-food programme,
agreed to between the United Nations and Iraq,
alleviates the impact of the unjust sanctions imposed
against Iraq. Such a claim, however, is quickly proved
to have no basis when set against the figures published
by the United Nations itself. More than three and a half
years have now passed since the inception of the
programme, during which Iraq has exported $31.6
billion worth of oil. Of this total, $9.5 billion has been
allocated to the Compensation Fund in Geneva and $1
billion allocated for operational administrative
expenses of the United Nations while, in the course of
three and a half years, only $8.3 billion has been
disbursed for purchases to cover the needs of the Iraqi
people.
There are also floating and semi-frozen
allocations for certain needs of Iraq amounting to $10
billion that have not been disbursed owing to
obstructions placed by the Americans and the British.
Such egregious obstructions include the suspension of
1173 contracts, valued at more than $2 billion, relating
to construction materials and humanitarian needs.
Despite increasing pressure on the international
community to put an end to this ongoing genocide, two
permanent members of the Security Council — the
United States of America and Britain — insist on
perpetuating this crime to further their plans to
destabilize the Arabian Gulf region and preserve its
hotbeds of tension with a view to prolonging their
hegemony over and military occupation of the region
and to plundering its wealth.
10

The United States openly declares that it is
prepared to use the veto against any attempt to lift the
sanctions imposed on Iraq. It is indeed shameful for the
United States that its Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright, has declared on television that the
continuation of sanctions is worth the death of 500,000
Iraqi children.
Just to clarify the matter, although the States
Members of the United Nations have authorized the
Security Council to act on their behalf provided that it
do so in accordance with the purposes and principles of
the United Nations, pursuant to Article 24 of the
Charter, the Security Council has, in the case of the
comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq, gone so far
beyond the purposes and principles of the Charter as to
turn itself into a cover for perpetrating a policy of
genocide against an entire people. Therefore, it
behoves the States Members of the United Nations to
voice their opinion as to the extent of the Security
Council's faithful compliance with such authorization.
In this connection, it is worth mentioning that, under
Article 25 of the Charter, Members of the United
Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of
the Security Council in accordance with the Charter.
This means that implementation of the comprehensive
sanctions imposed on Iraq, which have become illegal
under international humanitarian law and human rights
law, is no longer binding on States Members of the
United Nations.
I must also point out that my country is being
subjected to ongoing daily aggression by American and
British aircraft in the no-fly zone imposed on northern
and southern Iraq by unilateral decision of the
Washington and London Governments. The aircraft
launching the aggression take off from their bases in
Saudi, Kuwaiti and Turkish territory. This continuous
military action, which violates the integrity and
sovereignty of Iraq's airspace, has no basis in law or in
any binding resolution adopted by any competent organ
of the United Nations. It constitutes instead an
illegitimate unilateral action undertaken by the United
States of America and the United Kingdom.
These belligerent acts constitute both interference
in the internal affairs of Iraq and ongoing military
aggression against Iraq through the imposition of the
two no-fly zones. The illegal character of the
imposition of those two no-fly zones has been
confirmed by official statements issued by the Russian
Federation, France and China, which have from the
very outset declared their position that the imposition
of those zones has no basis in law. This position is also
supported by a former Secretary-General of the United
Nations who, in his book entitled Unvanquished: a
U.S.-U.N. Saga, makes it clear that the American claim
that Security Council resolution 688 (1991) authorizes
the launching of attacks against Iraq in order to enforce
the no-fly zone is baseless and that the enforcement of
the no-fly zones, far from having been endorsed by the
Security Council, is no more than a unilateral act by
the Governments of Washington and London.
The American and British acts of aggression have
inflicted enormous material and moral losses on Iraq
and gravely damaged its civilian infrastructure. The
loss of human life to date has amounted to more than
300 martyrs, while more than 900 civilians have been
wounded. The United States of America and Britain
bear responsibility for these acts of aggression and for
all their consequences, in accordance with the rules of
state responsibility under international law. By the
same rules, that responsibility is shared by Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey by virtue of their
participation, support and assistance in carrying out
these acts of aggression. The Saudi Government
provides American and British aggressors with military
facilities and the bases of Rafha, Dhahran, Khamis
Mushait, Al-Jauf and Tabuk, from which scores of
American and British planes take off to attack Iraq. In
Kuwait, the rulers provide services, facilities and
financing to the American and British aggressors at the
air bases of Ali Al Salim and Ahmed Al Jaber.
Iraq has discharged its obligations under relevant
Security Council resolutions. Consequently, the logical
result would be for the embargo imposed on Iraq to be
lifted. Moreover, the Charter requires that the
American-British aggression against Iraq be
condemned and that its perpetrators and those who
participate in it — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey —
bear the international responsibility, with all its legal
implications.
We cannot, under any circumstances, deal with an
unjust position that ignores the record of our fulfilment
of our obligations and that denies us our legitimate
right to have the embargo lifted, as required by the
Charter and the correct interpretation of relevant
Security Council resolutions. A flagrant example of
how the record of the fulfilment of our obligations has
been flouted and how our right to have the embargo
lifted has been denied is to be found in the

underhanded way by which the United States of
America and Britain have made Security Council
resolution 1284 (1999) a vehicle for defrauding Iraq of
its rights and for misrepresenting its full discharge of
its obligations under relevant Security Council
resolutions, including in particular resolution 687
(1991). Resolution 1284 (1999) does not represent a
solution at all, nor is it, in essence, anything other than
a deliberate ploy to further American anti-Iraq policy,
as embodied in the indefinite perpetuation of the
embargo. We have therefore clearly declared that we
shall have nothing to do with that resolution.
The Middle East region is suffering from a grave
situation caused by the fact that the Zionist entity that
occupies the Arab Palestinian territories possesses a
huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction of all
kinds — nuclear, chemical and biological — and longrange ballistic missiles. The Zionist entity occupying
Arab Palestine refuses to accede to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and refuses to
place all its nuclear installations under the
comprehensive safeguards regime of the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
Besides being a threat to peace and security in the
Middle East region and the world, such a position
exposes the double standard applied by the United
States, which at once arms the Zionist entity and gives
it unlimited support and deliberately ignores the
provisions of paragraph 14 of Security Council
resolution 687 (1991). This paragraph specifies that the
measures imposed on Iraq should be applied to other
countries in the region in order to make the Middle
East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and of
all systems of delivery of such weapons, as well as to
pursue the goal of imposing international prohibitions
against chemical weapons. The Security Council has
taken no action in this regard, despite the fact that Iraq
has implemented all the required measures.
Consequently, the way in which the Security Council
has acted under American pressure in this context is a
flagrant example of a double-standard policy.


I would like to join the other
delegations here in congratulating you, Mr. President,
on your election as President of the General Assembly.
May I also pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Theo-
Ben Gurirab who, through his experience and
diplomatic skills, guided the fifty-fourth session to a
successful conclusion. I wish to express our
appreciation to the Secretary-General, under whose
guidance and with whose expertise the Organization
has been moving ahead in the attainment of its goals.
May I also extend a warm welcome to Tuvalu, the
newest Member of the United Nations. For many years
Malta and Tuvalu have cooperated as joint members of
the Commonwealth.
This is an auspicious occasion, not merely
because the General Assembly is the most widely
representative group of the world's peoples, but also
since it comes at a time when we are poised on the
edge of a new dawn, a new beginning. Only last week
we saw and heard the heads of State or Government of
countries the world over reaffirm their faith in the
Organization and its Charter as indispensable
foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just
world. It was a renewed commitment to make the
United Nations a more effective instrument in the
hands of the world's people. This is a weighty
undertaking, and one which may well benefit from a re-
examination of the experience acquired during the past
55 years of the United Nations existence.
As we are all no doubt aware, the United Nations
has been instrumental in fostering a culture of
partnership among States. Indeed, we meet here today
in the understanding that this culture of partnership
must continue to constitute the basis for humanity's
progress. This is more than just a vision for the future;
it is the road map for the way forward based on a
programme of action that has weathered the
vicissitudes of time and withstood test after test ever
since its adoption in San Francisco over half a century
ago. It is a noble endeavour that has survived in the
face of adversity, that has experienced occasional
setbacks, but that has also registered more than a fair
share of success.
Aided by its long-standing commitment to
dialogue, the United Nations has positively contributed
to the process of decolonization that has so decisively
transformed the political map of the world. It has
promoted a culture of dialogue and cooperation in the
most diverse fields of human existence and endeavour,
28

ranging from health care to food supplies, from literacy
to urban development, from historical heritage to the
natural environment, and, more recently, improving the
status of women.
Nevertheless, in the crucial area of the
maintenance of peace and security — the very raison
d'être for the creation of the United Nations — the
Organization, for various reasons, has at times been
unable to fulfil this mandate. This is reflected in the
painfully honest reports of the Organization's failings
in Rwanda and Srebrenica. These negative experiences
provided the backdrop to the recently published
Brahimi report.
The Government of Malta shares the concerns
expressed in this report, which cautions in particular
against entrusting the United Nations Secretariat with
unrealistic mandates while not providing it with
commensurate resources. We look forward to early
consultations on the manner in which the
recommendations of the report may be pursued.
We have given serious consideration to
addressing these concerns and have decided to match
them with a specific commitment. It was in this
connection that my Prime Minister last week, in his
address to the Millennium Summit, signalled Malta's
intention to significantly increase its peacekeeping
contribution through a voluntary move from group C to
group B.
It will be recalled that over the years Malta has
made other contributions towards promoting the global
objectives of the United Nations. These have included
a number of initiatives not designed in the narrow
national interest but in the interest of the international
community as a whole.
May I recall in this connection Malta's proposals
to the General Assembly relating to the seabed and the
ocean floor, which led to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, to the question of
the ageing and to the initiative relating to climate
change. These initiatives alerted the United Nations to
examine the far-reaching, serious implications of those
issues and thereby enabled it to adopt timely measures,
which, as can be appreciated, have helped defuse, and
continue to defuse, potential political tensions,
environmental dangers and social complications.
The progress recorded in the United Nations over
the years is impressive and a source of great
satisfaction to my Government. The goals achieved,
while relevant the world over, lie extremely close to
the heart of the area of which Malta forms part. The
Mediterranean can be seen as a microcosm of the larger
world stage. We have faced, and continue to face,
intermittent conflicts and wide gaps in development
levels. The shortage of freshwater resources in some
areas is potentially another serious challenge. Despite
being a sea of promise and great opportunity, the
Mediterranean continues to challenge our political will
to nurture long-lasting stability. Security in the
Mediterranean requires committed and quiet
determination to identify both the problems and, more
importantly, the solutions. The element of dialogue that
has so often underscored the work of the United
Nations has brought much to the enhancement of
relations between the States of that part of the world.
Malta indeed not only shares the aspirations of the
United Nations in this regard, but has striven
throughout the years to ensure that they become an
integral part of all dealings in the Mediterranean.
Together with the rest of the world community,
Malta welcomes the progress made in the Middle East
peace process. We hope that the same determination as
helped overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles
in the past will continue to inspire the protagonists to
work for the goal of a just and permanent peace and
security for our Middle Eastern neighbours.
The Balkans are another part of the
Mediterranean area that also continues to challenge the
will of the international community in its quest for
stability and its determination to ensure that full
respect for human rights becomes the common heritage
of all peoples who live there. In this respect, every
positive development is of the utmost importance.
For over 25 years the situation in Cyprus has
remained a cause of concern. We therefore earnestly
hope that an early settlement of the Cyprus question
will be found. In this connection, the Maltese
Government reiterates its full support for the Secretary-
General's efforts to find a solution on the basis of the
relevant Security Council resolutions.
The Mediterranean has also been witness to the
cruel and merciless trafficking in human beings, a
tragic and criminal exploitation of the misery of others.
We welcome the initiatives taken by the Italian
Government at the Conference for Development and
Security in the Adriatic and the Ionian held in Ancona
29

last May. The broad parameters established in that
Conference can indeed serve as a prototype for similar
agreements elsewhere.
Malta has always been acutely aware of the role it
can play in bridging the divides of this complex area.
Successive Maltese Governments have consistently
promoted efforts to develop and consolidate
cooperation between the littoral States of the
Mediterranean at both a bilateral and multilateral level.
In the mid-1970s we hosted the preparatory
meeting that led to the Barcelona Convention that
launched the Mediterranean Action Plan. In 1995 we
argued in favour of a Mediterranean stability pact for
the region, a proposal which is now taking shape in the
form of a Euro-Mediterranean charter for peace and
stability. In 1997, at a time of difficult political
circumstances for the area, Malta hosted the second
Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference, following
that of Barcelona in 1995. More recently, Malta was
one of the prime movers behind a recommendation
within the Conference on Security Co-operation in the
Mediterranean process of the Inter-Parliamentary
Union for the establishment of a Parliamentary
Assembly of Mediterranean States. These initiatives
serve to underscore our commitment to the
achievement of peace, prosperity and a just solution to
the demands of the Mediterranean people.
We believe, however, that on our own we can
only do so much, and that therefore the principle of
multilateralism, as enshrined in last week's
Declaration, must be fully respected and observed. As
was stated in the final Declaration of the Millennium
Summit, the management of economic and social
development, as well as the risks and threats to
international peace and security, must be a shared
responsibility. Freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance
and respect for the natural environment are goals
towards which our combined energies and efforts
should be channelled.
It is for these reasons that we have chosen to
pursue the path of membership of the European Union.
It is the common values and principles that inspired the
birth of what is today the European Union that inspire
us in our quest. This is because it is through
membership that we feel we can best play our part on
the international stage, and contribute more effectively
towards the promotion of peace and progress in the
Mediterranean. We feel that our capabilities to play a
useful role may be greatly enhanced from within the
European Union. This is not solely for our own local
benefit. We believe that our membership will give the
European Union an added dimension that will serve to
benefit both the northern and southern shores of the
Mediterranean littoral.
Good governance is what we, the peoples of the
United Nations, seek at a national, regional and
international level. Yet good governance is exactly
what is threatened by a number of phenomena that
plague our contemporary society. Ranging from the
trafficking of drugs to that of armaments and human
beings, international organized crime threatens the very
texture of law and order through abuse, corruption and
violence. The growth of related crimes also alerts us to
the need for ever closer international cooperation.
As much as the socio-political environment
requires constant vigilance, so too does the physical
environment. Global warming remains a constant
concern, and we urge that the undertakings to ward off
the further degradation of the ozone layer be fully
adhered to.
Questions of disarmament, extreme poverty, the
striking proportions of HIV and AIDS and the
vulnerability of the disabled, infirm and those
discriminated against on the basis of race or religion
remain ever present on the world agenda. At no time
must we lose sight of these very real issues faced by a
huge proportion of the world's people. We must, in
pursuit of a more caring and equitable society, seek to
understand and subsequently meet the needs of these
vulnerable members of society. It is not sufficient to
promote global e-commerce and ever new economic
world orders if we do not also tackle the root causes of
many of the problems in the developing world. We
need to convert these enormous challenges into
moments of opportunity. We need to harness the
positive forces of globalization, the new knowledge-
based economy and the opportunities of trade to bridge
the divides that persist throughout each and every
continent.
The United Nations has taken a leading role in
promoting international understanding and agreement
in relation to these varied and diverse areas. Indeed, a
wide spectrum of activities, international agreements
and agencies of the United Nations have been put to
good use in the creation of the impetus necessary for
change. We must continue in our endeavours to bring
30

people to a common understanding of how this can best
be consolidated, not solely through dialogue, but
through concrete actions that must necessarily follow.
The number and variety of tasks that face the
United Nations are by no means small. Malta is,
however, convinced that the United Nations is the
forum best positioned to provide workable options and
long-term solutions to the problems that plague the
world and man's relations with it. Last week's
Millennium Summit clearly demonstrated the
international community's renewed commitment to this
unique and indispensable Organization and its vital role
in the maintenance of peace and stability, the
eradication of poverty, ignorance and disease and the
protection of the global environment.
If the Millennium Summit charted our course
towards making the United Nations a more effective
instrument in the hands of the world's peoples, then the
Millennium Assembly must come to be remembered as
the point in time when the first major decisions were
taken to place the Organization firmly on this chosen
path. I hope that these will not be merely empty
declarations of intent, but that each Government and
each of us here present today will endeavour to better
our corner of the globe as best we can. My Government
remains determined to play its part.


The
General Assembly has unanimously chosen you, Sir, to
guide our debates. This is a tribute both to your
qualities as a diplomat and statesman and to your
country, Finland, for the very positive role it plays in
addressing the great issues of our modern world.
Senegal is happy to convey to you, through me, its
congratulations and hopes for success in leading this
session.
You were preceded in this office by His
Excellency Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of our sister Republic of Namibia, who
presided in the name of our continent, Africa. He
guided our debates successfully throughout his
mandate, which was full of important events for our
Organization.
I would like at the same time to pay tribute to the
work of our Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who
has devoted himself and all his energy to our
Organization, in an increasingly complex world. Let us
pay him the tribute he richly deserves for the success of
the Millennium Summit, which proved to the world
that Mr. Kofi Annan has achieved what he set out to
do, i.e. to restore the dignity and prestige of the
Organization as the indispensable forum for
concertation and concord, and as a peacemaker and
promoter of progress for all.
I would also like, finally, to welcome the
delegation of Tuvalu, which has become the 189th
Member State.
History will recall that, in the framework of the
Millennium Assembly, the Millennium Summit
gathered in this venerable Hall our illustrious heads of
State and Government, who examined the role our
Organization is being called upon to play in the twenty-
first century. These eminent dignitaries thereby gave us
a new vision of how to take up the great challenge
posed by globalization  by promoting a new human
international order.
The first half of the year 2000 was also an intense
time for the United Nations and the international
community, what with the holding in June of two major
special sessions of the General Assembly. These two
special sessions  following up on and reviewing the
Fourth World Conference on Women, which was held
in Beijing, and the World Summit on Social
Development, held in Copenhagen  produced
encouraging results. My delegation cherishes the hope
that these sessions will contribute to strengthening the
status and role of women in our respective societies by
promoting gender equality, the eradication both of
poverty and of its feminization, and the promotion of
productive employment and social integration. If we do
not fully respect women and recognize their essential
contribution to the progress of our societies, our world
is going continue walking on one leg, when obviously
there are two.
Despite these new perspectives and their
historical importance, this session is not without causes
for grave concern and even despair. Despite our
ongoing efforts, a number of conflicts are persisting
and deepening. From Sierra Leone to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, from Angola to the border
between Ethiopia and Eritrea, from Burundi to
Somalia, from Kosovo to East Timor we hear the
echoes and see the images and the horror of conflict
zones.
Senegal would like to here voice its great concern
at what is occurring between Guinea and Liberia. Our
country calls upon these two countries to carry out a
brotherly, peaceful dialogue in accordance with the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU). We make the
same urgent request of the political leaders of CÙte
d'Ivoire, urging them to find a political compromise
that will enable the great country, CÙte d'Ivoire, which
we love so well, to live in peace, stability and unity.
It is in view of such situations that regional
organizations, aware of the fact that Africa is paying a
high price for all these conflicts, have resolutely
undertaken to seek political solutions, with the help of
the international community. This is what occurred in
9

Sierra Leone, where the LomÈ Agreement, reached
under the aegis of the Economic Community of West
African States, allowed us to nourish hopes for a
lasting solution. The same can be said for Angola and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the two
Lusaka agreements of 1994 and 1999, respectively.
Unfortunately, these praiseworthy efforts often run up
against a lack of commitment on the part of rebel
movements or armed factions to the very agreements
that they themselves have signed.
However, in spite of this bleak situation, we
should not give in to discouragement. As the
constitution of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization says,
`since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the
minds of men that the defences of peace must be
constructed'.
We have a moral obligation to continue to act with
determination and perseverance, bringing the
protagonists of these conflicts to recognize and
embrace a culture of peace that will allow people to
progress, committing themselves to forgiveness and
reconciliation.
It is in this context that my delegation
congratulates the members of the Panel on United
Nations Peace Operations for its recent report. The
subtlety of the analyses and the relevance of the
recommendations contained therein open new
perspectives for the United Nations in terms of
reducing tensions and wisely managing conflicts.
Senegal attaches great importance to the consideration
of the Panel's recommendations, so that a new
peacekeeping doctrine can be established.
Experience has shown us that the language of
weapons, as well as feeding conflicts by illicitly
exploiting natural resources, cannot produce humanly
acceptable solutions. The only possible solution is one
that allows peoples to fully enjoy conditions of peace
and economic and social security.
It is in this context that the Constitutive Act of
the African Union was signed on 12 July at LomÈ, at
the thirty-sixth session of the Assembly of Heads of
State and Government of the Organization of African
Unity (OAU), committing Africa to resolutely engage
in a spirit of unity in finding African solutions to its
many challenges. This is why the President of the
Republic, MaÓtre Abdoulaye Wade, a convinced Pan-
Africanist, led to its completion the procedure making
Senegal the second African country to ratify this
historic Act.
Before LomÈ, Africa had already taken another
meaningful decision, at the Algiers summit, by
proclaiming 2000 the year of peace and concord on the
continent.
The advent of democracy in Guinea-Bissau and
the efforts to bring about a gradual return to normality
in the life of its citizens and institutions are part of the
response to the demand for democracy. Is not the
recent peaceful political transition in my country,
which brought MaÓtre Abdoulaye Wade to the highest
executive position, further proof that our peoples can
choose their leaders in a sovereign and democratic
fashion?
I now turn to the Middle East, where my country
has noted the major breakthroughs this year in the
Israeli-Arab conflict, at the heart of which is the
question of Palestine. The evacuation of Lebanese
territory by the Israeli occupation troops and the long
and delicate negotiations at Camp David between
Palestinians and Israelis give rise to hope, despite the
talks' relative failure. Our hopes include that of seeing
the creation of a space of lasting cohabitation between
Israelis and Palestinians, as well as between Israel and
its Arab neighbours, with respect for the dignity and
rights of the peoples and States of the region.
It is only right to pay tribute to all the participants
in this positive development, in particular the
Palestinian and Israeli leadership, who, thanks to their
political courage and sense of history have opened this
avenue towards a new dawn of peace in the Middle
East. Senegal reiterates its constant support for
President Yasser Arafat and its admiration for his
courage and political lucidity. He has never dropped
the olive branch to which he referred here in 1974. Our
congratulations also go to President Clinton. We
express our support for the Prime Minister of Israel,
Mr. Barak, as well as the other actors in the peace
process, whom we commend for their determined
efforts in search of peace and reconciliation between
all the peoples of the region. We hope that their efforts
will soon be crowned with positive results.
The year 2000 was also marked by a relaxation of
major importance in relations between the two Koreas.
This highly significant political development will
contribute to consolidating peace and security on the
10

Korean peninsula and in the entire subregion of South-
East Asia. The United Nations, universal symbol of the
peoples' aspirations to peace and security, should make
a significant contribution to protecting the ongoing
process between the two Koreas.
It is in the name of rapprochement between
peoples and the principle of universality that my
country supports the request of the Republic of China
on Taiwan to rejoin the concert of free nations within
the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and
thus to participate in the consolidation of international
peace and security.
With the completion last June of the definition of
what constitutes crimes, and of the rules of procedure
and testimony, the Preparatory Committee for the
International Criminal Court passed a significant
milestone in the establishment of this important legal
institution. This progress and the new ratifications of
the Rome Statute, are encouraging signs of the
international community's rejection of criminal faits
accomplis, injustice and impunity. I repeat Senegal's
support for the process, which should bring about a
credible, independent and efficient International
Criminal Court.
Building and consolidating peace also, and above
all, means to meeting the chronic challenge of
underdevelopment, for, as we know, development is
another name for peace. Twenty years ago the North-
South Commission on development problems strongly
emphasized that where hunger reigns there cannot be
peace, and that whoever wants to banish war must also
banish poverty. Yet today, despite that warning, poverty
persists and grows, although we have the means to
fight it.
We dare to hope that next year's high-level
meeting on financing development will be a unique
opportunity to examine in depth the causes of the
decline in official development assistance and will find
ways and means to redress this worrying situation: the
urgent need to deal with the debt crisis, rebalance
international trade and deal with the risks of
marginalization resulting from globalization.
I recall President Wade's appeal, warmly received
by his peers, for an in-depth analysis of the African
debt and for a world summit on globalization to correct
its injustices and contradictions.
I would also like to reiterate Senegal's support for
cooperation frameworks such as the EU-ACP
agreements and the Tokyo International Conference on
African Development (TICAD). We hope that recent
decisions made at the G-8 Summit in Okinawa, as well
as the American initiative, `African Growth and
Opportunity Act', will be the starting point of a new
partnership based on solidarity and mutual benefits.
Development is inseparable from the promotion
and protection of human rights, the rule of law and
sound governance, principles to which my country
remains firmly attached. By creating a human rights
unit attached to the presidency of the Republic, the
Head of State has shown his personal commitment to
the protection and promoting of citizens' fundamental
rights and freedoms by the Administration and at every
level of public life. Senegal will continue to make
every effort to consolidate the foundations of the rule
of law, to protect human rights defenders and to honour
the obligations it assumes by its adherence to
international legal instruments on human rights.
With the momentum created by the success in
Senegal of the peaceful change-over of political power
and a peaceful transition, my country feels equipped to
continue to defend the image of a serene Africa, a
mature Africa, a tolerant and democratic Africa.
Today, more than ever, our people wonder about
the political will and capacity of our States to take
advantage of the current international climate, which
seems propitious for a dynamic of peace and for taking
into account the human dimension in technological
innovations.
In Africa our thoughts often turn to the anguish
caused by the ravages of HIV/AIDS, although with a
l.6 per cent rate, Senegal strengthens the hope that this
scourge will be defeated.
Fifty years ago, at the end of the planetary
nightmare of the Second World War, a hope and
conviction were born: that men and women throughout
the world would do everything possible to prevent new
wars from breaking out and would work together to
ensure respect for the right of each individual to
freedom, justice and progress. Today the intellectual
and material resources available to humanity should
logically be increasingly dedicated to building a future
of peace, progress and shared happiness. But it must be
said that for the great majority of peoples and nations

the international situation does not meet their
aspirations to peace and progress.
In the final analysis, to build a pan-human society
which is at peace with itself we must unite all our
energies to create the basis for more human
development with greater solidarity, bringing new hope
to future generations. This is the importance and
meaning of the Millennium Summit, in urging us to
make a collective contribution to strengthening our
Organization for the salvation of humanity.
As it has become a tradition in my country, I will
leave the last word of my statement to the inimitable
Senegal-Cameroon poet of love and hope, David
Mandesijop, who said:
`Hope lived in us as in a citadel.'
I hope the aspiration to a more just and happy
world will live within us all as an impregnable citadel
so, as Mandesijop said, that spring will grow beneath
our footsteps.


Please allow me to share
with Mr. Holkeri the joy of his election to the
presidency of the fifty-fifth session of the General
Assembly. He can rest assured of Nigeria's support and
cooperation. May I also express the same sentiment on
behalf of the Group of 77. To his predecessor and my
colleague, His Excellency Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab of
Namibia, Nigeria and the Group of 77 wish to express
our pride in and appreciation of the most distinguished
manner in which he discharged his duties as the
President of the fifty-fourth session. We are indeed
very proud of him.
May I also commend the Secretary-General, Mr.
Kofi Annan, for the manner in which he has piloted
20

and continues to manage the affairs of the United
Nations. I would also like to thank him for his
millennium report, which has identified some of the
pressing problems and challenges facing mankind.
In the past few weeks here at the United Nations
a lot of reflection and deep thinking have taken place
among world leaders, all in an attempt to more
coherently define the future. The end of one
millennium and the beginning of another warrant all
these efforts to find such a purposeful definition. Fifty-
five years ago the United Nations was formed as a
global bulwark against armed conflict on a world scale,
such as the Second World War. Over the years its
mandate of preserving international security has
broadened from strictly preventing such armed conflict
to cover also fundamental issues of socio-economic
security for humanity. For example, in many of the
developing countries the United Nations manifests its
potential more through the United Nations Children's
Fund, the World Health Organization, the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization and other agencies than in Security
Council resolutions, comparatively speaking. It is also
from the activities of these United Nations agencies
that the underprivileged sectors of poor countries
benefit directly, activities from which these same
countries, including those in Africa, have come to
imbibe the idealism regarding the United Nations
ability to harmonize the totality of progress to the
benefit of all human stakeholders.
To a great extent this idealism has not been
misplaced. In fact, at no other time has the possibility
of a global family been more real than now. This
prospect must, I am sure, have been very exciting to so
many of us and must have been the basis for hailing the
United Nations system for its own role in and
contribution to these achievements. But as my
President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, aptly observed
here less than two weeks ago,
“Although the world has generally become a
safer place to live in, thanks to the contributions
of the United Nations, we must all feel deeply
worried that the message of hope which the
Organization has been spreading is yet to reach
the millions of humankind for whom it is
intended. For the vast majority of our peoples,
grinding poverty has remained a fact of their
everyday existence.” (A/55/PV.7)
This reality of grinding poverty has raised
considerable apprehension in some United Nations
Member States about their fate in the new millennium.
There is a clear basis for this apprehension, given that
the past millennium was, for most of these countries,
characterized by extreme poverty, heavy indebtedness,
wars of attrition and the resultant mass ordeal and
anguish for both their immediate and distant victims,
absolute vulnerability to epidemics such as cholera,
malaria and typhoid, the rage of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic, the scourge of natural disasters, serious
technological backwardness and a digital divide
between them and the others, and by profound
economic decline and infrastructural decay. In the last
decade in particular, whatever hopes were raised by
some initiatives aimed at mitigating African and third
world underdevelopment have dwindled to nothing as
the world emerged from the cold war into a more
problematic concept called globalization.
The globe, which is the symbol or logo of the
United Nations, depicts humanity. From the word
“globe” has been derived a phenomenon called
globalization, which explicitly connotes a world
without national borders, with particular reference to
commerce, in which humanity is one huge market.
Apart from thus unfortunately associating the noble
and emotive word “humanity” with the materialism of
commerce and the market, globalization automatically
raises other questions for three quarters of humanity
outside the orbit of industrial competence.
In a global economy all the actors in that
economy should also be stakeholders. But what stake
does Africa have in a global economy? Economically,
it is heavily indebted, some of its countries committing
up to 55 per cent of gross earnings to debt servicing
and payment. What can the little that is left do for the
domestic economy? What does an economy that
produces virtually nothing in industrial terms have to
offer, and, moreover, how can it compete in a global
economy? What is the income level of the average
African, relative to that of his or her counterparts in
many countries of the West, vis-à-vis the capacity to
patronize the goods and services which globalization
offers? How does globalization facilitate democratic
consolidation? How can the core values of liberal
democracy, such as the rule of law, the preservation of
human rights and good governance, be sustained by a
Government that lacks the resources to competently
provide a minimum of social service delivery and thus
21

sustain legitimacy and regime credibility? In what
ways would a typical regime in Africa be able to
contribute its quota to democratic consolidation with
the debt overhang, the exchange and interest rate
practices in the international financial architecture, the
prices offered for raw materials relative to the prices of
industrial goods and services, the limited trade access
and the conditionalities tied to loans and aid?
As a responsible member of the international
community and as the chair of the G-77, Nigeria is
obliged to draw attention to the context of our present
situation. What is clear to me now is that the dream of
a global family cannot be attained if the present world
architecture of power and the reward system continues.
The dialogue of the Organization of African Unity, the
Non-Aligned Movement and the G-77 with the G-8
countries has so far shown that a great deal can be
achieved from that approach to the issues in question.
As President Obasanjo again said in a separate speech,
it is imperative for the world to seize this moment to
begin to get the future right, since such a solemn
moment in the history of mankind as the recent
Millennium Summit, may not always present itself. We
are talking of dialogue that takes the issues on board in
a holistic manner, as opposed to the current practice of
abstracting merely one or other manifestation of the
system — for example, in the case of wars of attrition
and the idea of international humanitarian intervention.
The debate so far has brought to the fore the
problem of the contradiction between sovereignty and
intervention. Of course, nation States, even those on
the verge of evaporation, would be sensitive to the
word “intervention”. But, more than that, discussion of
the issue has brought out the one-dimensional nature of
the treatment of some issues or problems in terms of
what we include in or exclude from the definition. In
this particular case, the debate so far has concentrated
on war situations or armed conflicts featuring massive
loss of life.
What of other situations where loss of life is also
of a serious magnitude but not as a result of war or
armed conflict? What of the silent genocide occasioned
by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, epidemics and natural
disasters such as famine, drought, flood, etc.? What
about the situation that arises when sanctions lead to
deaths on a serious scale? All these should find a place
in a proper and systematic discussion of humanitarian
intervention aimed at giving succour to those who may
be trapped in tragedies other than wars.
Similarly, is there no other way by which the
world can arrest the proliferation of small arms and
light weapons in Africa and other parts of the South?
Certainly the world knows about the nature and types
of weapons used in the prosecution of these wars,
where they are manufactured and by whom, the
processes by which they are traded and acquired and
the key facilitators of these processes, including
national governments and arms merchants. What if the
search for solutions focused on these areas?
These and many other weighty global issues were
discussed at the first ever South Summit held in
Havana last April. That Summit was a defining
moment for the Group of 77 countries which pondered
the challenges of the twenty-first century. In Havana
the South resolved to forge a new and meaningful
partnership with the industrialized nations. We
demanded equal partnership in decision-making that
affects the whole of humanity. That was the message
the leaders of the South took to the G8 Summit in
Okinawa. The outcome of that consultation vividly
demonstrates that meaningful partnership is a must for
the new century. Certainly the interests of mankind
compel a more inclusive participation of all segments
of our global community.


This is neither the place
nor the time for me to repeat what my head of State
and I have said in speeches regarding most of the
critical national, regional and international issues. On
those issues Namibia's position is unchanged, and my
views remain valid. There are, however, some specific
matters that I feel require reiteration. That is what I am
going to do today.
Not too long ago in these corridors, an
unprecedented 150 heads of State and Government
participated in the historic Millennium Summit, which
was appropriately dubbed “We the peoples: the role of
the United Nations in the twenty-first century”. The
Millennium Declaration, which was the result of that
concerted effort to meet the daunting challenges of this
century with boldness and courage and in a truly global
united front, is destined take its place alongside the
7

Charter of the United Nations as one of the most
seminal documents of all time. In responding to the
peoples' fervent clarion call to redefine and vigorously
support the United Nations mandates and programmes,
and to meet the challenges of HIV/AIDS, malaria and
other diseases that threaten to decimate our populations
while leaving millions of others too weak to derive
value from life, the world leaders undertook before the
whole world to save humanity from the scourge of war,
fear and want.
The citizens of the world paid witness to the
sober promises of the Millennium Summit. They wait
in earnest for Member States to make good on the
pledges made in the Millennium Declaration. They, the
peoples, as our ultimate constituencies, are indeed the
ones we must serve. However, they are sceptical
because of failures to make good on previous pledges.
Yet they expect us to implement the undertakings we
made at the Summit, committing whatever resources of
material or of the heart are called for. For our part,
therefore, we must find the collective political will to
mobilize the necessary resources to implement the
commitments. We must also reconnect with the passion
that drove the leaders of the world, determined to spare
humanity the devastation of war and deprivation, to
found the United Nations.
In responding to this clarion call, Member States
must forge a new global partnership between the
wealthy and powerful nations and those whose present
circumstances leave them mired in the seemingly
intractable maze of a merry-go-round type of
development. The North must be gracious and
generous, and give enough of what has been acquired
from global resources to assist poor and weak countries
to help propel them into the orbit of sustainable and
irreversible social and economic growth.
For its part, the South must not only take sober
stock of our present challenges, but also devote energy
and creativity to genuinely engage all our countries in a
common effort at social development and human
security. To do so, we must rise above the temptation to
settle scores through armed conflict; place the will and
genius of our peoples at the helm of national
reconstruction; and give prominence to the credo
written in stone on the wall which adorns the courtyard
adjacent to the General Assembly, to turn our swords
into ploughshares. It is the marriage of this dual
commitment of the wealthy and strong, and the
presently poor and weak nations, which carries in its
womb the child of a new world, aglow in global peace,
development and prosperity.
Alongside the Millennium Summit were other
major activities of great importance at the United
Nations and elsewhere in New York. The Security
Council conducted its own high-level consultations,
culminating in a categorical commitment, especially to
Africa, towards development, peace and security on the
continent. The conference of presiding officers of the
world's parliaments resolved to work closely with the
United Nations in pursuit of people-centred goals. The
World Peace Summit, which brought together religious
leaders from practically all faiths, in its declaration on
a commitment to global peace, in addition to
recognizing gender equality, declared all religions to be
equal and condemned any violence perpetrated in the
name of religion. The non-governmental organizations,
which in their summit earlier in May had called for a
global solidarity in which corporations would
demonstrate a greater sense of social responsibility,
especially in the pursuit of the benefits of
globalization, reaffirmed their advocacy for social
change in their Department of Public Information/Non-
Governmental Organization Forum in August.
Together, participants in all these gatherings sought to
help redefine the pivotal role of the United Nations and
all other world organizations in the new millennium in
uplifting the peoples of the world.
The active role of grass-roots organizations, both
in their own conference and in their interaction with all
the other conferences, is a clear sign that “We the
Peoples” are actually now firmly reclaiming our
legitimate right to be heard wherever States are
discussing a new beginning in human relations and the
future of the United Nations — our common House.
Bearing this in mind, the world's leaders made a
special commitment to Africa to implement special
measures to address the challenges of poverty
eradication and sustainable development through such
actions as debt cancellation, increased investment and
greater access to markets and technology. All human
footprints start with the first lonely step.
We had witnessed a robust and generous spirit of
teamwork on the part of Member States in preparing
for the General Assembly's Millennium Summit and
galvanizing a partnership for a successful outcome. In
the fullness of time, it all came together, and we got it
right, to the satisfaction of all. It was collaboration
8

rather than competition. Thorns and all, what a
beautiful rose it turned out to be.
In Africa, we say that no one man can put his
hands around a baobab tree. It requires many hands
joined together to form a circle around that proverbial
tree. I thank all my collaborators. We are all winners,
and the integrity of the United Nations does not just
remain intact, but is enhanced. I remember, though,
what my President and Co-Chairperson of the
Millennium Summit, Mr. Sam Nujoma, stressed in his
closing statement:
“[W]e have adopted a historic Declaration with a
vision for the future ... The Declaration in itself
will not put bread on [the] tables [of the peoples
of the world], stop the wars, erase poverty ... We
cannot, therefore, afford to go back home from
here and continue business as usual.” (A/55/PV.8)
That is the question and, indeed, the challenge for the
United Nations and the global community. His
counterpart, the President of Finland, Ms. Tarja
Halonen, echoed those sentiments in her own closing
speech.
Sir, against the backdrop of those profound
circumstances and events relating to the Millennium
Summit, we welcome a fortunate coincidence which
has set the stage for your unanimous election as
President of the fifty-fifth session of the General
Assembly, together with the eminent members of your
Bureau. I congratulate you all warmly and assure you
of Namibia's steadfast cooperation.
In my acceptance speech of 14 September 1999, I
complained about a creeping but steady derogation of
the General Assembly's functions and powers, contrary
to the letter and spirit of the relevant provisions of the
Charter of the United Nations. This situation has hardly
changed for the better during the past year. If anything,
the encroachment has intensified. I have therefore
decided to speak up, so that we no longer take things
for granted in the ensuing months.
I found the Office of the President of the General
Assembly to be the main target of this unacceptable
denigration. In the animal kingdom, the predator goes
for the head or the jugular to incapacitate its prey.
Well, that seems to be the case here as well. For some
time now — prior to my tenure of office — we had
been discussing practical ways and means of
strengthening the Office of the President to ensure its
capacity and effectiveness.
In light of this, I would suggest – subject, of
course, to the President's disposition – an early
planning meeting involving the President, the
Chairman of the Fifth Committee and the Chairman of
the Advisory Committee on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions to review this situation and to act
upon what has already been agreed, including adequate
resources for the Office of the President. No President
of the General Assembly should be subjected to the
whims of faceless bureaucrats as if he or she were
asking for personal favours.
In this context, two key paragraphs in the
Millennium Declaration are apropos. First, paragraph
30 underscores the commitment to
“reaffirm the central position of the General
Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-
making and representative organ of the United
Nations, and to enable it to play that role
effectively”. (resolution 55/2, para. 30)
This is a clear and categorical reaffirmation of the
centrality of the Assembly, notwithstanding the
existing and desirable division of labour or
complementary functions among the principal organs.
Secondly, in paragraph 31, the heads of State and
Government collectively state:
“We request the General Assembly to
review on a regular basis the progress made in
implementing the provisions of this Declaration,
and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic
reports for consideration by the General
Assembly and as a basis for further action.”
(ibid., para. 31)
I would make another suggestion. Under the
President's authority, the Bureau should act as an
executive arm of the Office of the President,
superintending the work of the Assembly and
interacting vertically with the heads of the other United
Nations bodies. We always have a solid team in the
Bureau consisting of the President, 21 Vice-Presidents
and the Chairpersons of the six Main Committees for
this crucial task. I was privileged to have a team of
able ambassadors and, at times, even higher
personalities assisting me, to all of whom I remain
grateful. The Bureau should be formalized as a
political mechanism. What we should be striving for is
9

a formalized system of regular consultations and better
coordination of mandates and action in which the right
hand knows what the left hand is doing at all times.
While I will leave these hallowed halls soon and
return to my duties as Namibia's Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Information and Broadcasting, my heart and
soul will always be walking the routines of the General
Assembly. Namibia's celebrated case for self-
determination, freedom and achievement of
independence and the greater part of my own personal
story — perhaps a bit unlike that of any of my
predecessors as Assembly Presidents — are written on
these majestic walls. Indeed, it is actually here and
nowhere else that one can appreciate the roots and the
systemic evolution of the United Nations itself.
Now I want to express some views of my own
about the latest buzzword: globalization. In the
process, I will also respond to what some say – that the
peoples of the third world should not run away in fright
from globalization. Frankly speaking, globalization is
merely a new name for an old, cruel and unjust system
which was imposed willy-nilly upon the peoples of the
third world in the past. Globalization is at least 500
years old in the case of Africa. As someone bluntly put
it, “globalization is the reformation of what we used to
call capitalist imperialism”. That is what he said; I
think he has a point.
That globalization forcibly introduced the
iniquities of the slave trade, colonial oppression, the
dispossession of land, racial bigotry and the destruction
of our precious lives and cultures is a matter of
historical record. We cannot be blamed for harbouring
painful memories of the marauding usurpers from
Europe peddling the virtues of a civilizing mission.
Those uninvited intruders anchored their merchant
ships along the coast and put up their foreign flags.
Next, millions of people ended up dead, others were
shipped off to the diaspora, while the rest became
victims of a brutal system of colonialism. That, too, is
a matter of record.
The more the benefits of globalization are
advertised, the more all of it sounds hypocritical and
self-serving. Nobody is suggesting that we must run
away from globalization. At the same time, we will
keep reminding ourselves of the lessons of history lest
we forget the ultimate truth that the lion will not lie
down with the lamb. Mind you, industrialization was
not bloodless or painless either.
If perchance globalization is to have genuine
efficacy, then we in the third world, who constitute by
far the majority of the globe, must infuse it with our
own vision, our wisdom, our sense of equity and fair
play, the essence of the hard lessons we have learned
from our history and experience. In such an
eventuality, we will have to redesign the basic
paradigm of globalization.
On the one hand, it is said that many African
States are at risk of missing out on the opportunities
offered by globalization; on the other hand, Africans
are repeatedly being told to find answers themselves to
African problems. Well, which is it? This was never
actually said about any other continent or peoples at
their worst hour of imminent disaster. I must confess
that I do not know how Europe survived the black
plague, which decimated its population, killing many
hundreds of thousands. But I know, at least, something
about contemporary European history of the past 50
years. I think of the devastation and misery in that
continent after the Second World War. Concerted
political will, massive resources and a gigantic plan of
action were put in place to save Europe. It was the
famous Marshall Plan that we Africans were forced to
read about in schools that did it. Europe was pulled
back from a precipice because of that comprehensive
and coordinated action of solidarity and today is
building a strong Union together. It is clear that there
was no idea of abandoning Europe to its own fate. But
it was not only that.
There is another instructive example, that of the
remarkable Alliance for Progress. That laudable
initiative helped Latin America to emerge from an
economic and social morass and restored in the people
an empowering confidence for the future. Today, we
see the great Southern Cone Common Market
(MERCOSUR) and other important regional economic
and trade groupings fostering economic growth, full
employment and the generation of wealth for the
benefit all in that vital part of the world. For me, that
represents the true meaning of human brotherhood and
“prosper thy neighbour”. Africa's key Western
cooperating partners should not hold the view that
those two examples are unique circumstances from the
remote past or that they are far removed from the
hardships and misery that Africa and its peoples are
facing today.
Only when pledges made by world leaders are
translated into concrete programmes and substantial
10

resources are made available to achieve the time-bound
targets set by the Millennium Summit can we in Africa
take comfort in and draw strength from the recent
inspiring commitments. Alhough nobility of mind is a
necessary prelude to magnanimity, performance is the
only vindication of its efficacy. This is because human
beings are not known for mental quantum leaps,
disregarding embedded social consciousness. Humans
tend to hold on to painful memories and to keep
reminding their tormentors of their obligation. Hence,
the persistent demands in Africa, in Europe, in Asia
and in other places for atonement, reparations and
compensation and insistence on the return of all stolen
cultural artworks, precious relics and sacred icons from
abroad to their place of origin — lock, stock and barrel.
Africans, who were wronged more than, or at
least as much as, any other group of people, are
legitimately entitled to justice on political, legal, and
humanitarian grounds. Now is the time to settle that
unfinished business and moral deficit.
My good friend said the other day that the best
form of diplomacy is to tell the truth. I have some
truthful things I want to direct to my own camp — the
third world. My remarks will be of a general nature and
will likely annoy some of my friends. But in Africa,
candour, no matter how distressing it can sometimes
be, is not only a form of democracy, but also a
language for protecting and strengthening the family.
So I am sure that they, too, will understand, because all
of it comes from my heart.
I believe we urgently need to review our priorities
and map out a new strategy in order to effectively, and
in unity, deal with the battles ahead. Once again, we
must stand up for our legitimate and just rights. My
brother Foreign Minister from a small Caribbean State
has pointed out that “there are new forms of war
currently being waged on the small, the weak and the
vulnerable” in the countries of the South. While this is
a confirmation of the obvious, the situation is quite
serious.
Ironically, in the South we are waging
unconscionable and destructive wars against one
another, militarily invading and occupying
neighbouring States under the pretext of security or
alleged historical reasons. In the process, we create, by
omission or by commission, convenient troubled
waters for outsiders to fish in. Nations are burning, and
peoples are dying from bullets, hunger and infectious
diseases at the same time. We are destroying ourselves.
This must stop. We really have nobody to blame but
ourselves. Rationalizations and excuses made after a
fait accompli stink to high heaven. We must regroup
and concentrate on development, poverty eradication,
regional cooperation and integration. We have agreed
to promote a culture of peace, to practise tolerance and
to enlarge opportunities for peaceful coexistence. The
Havana South Summit and its plan of action gave us an
impetus to push ahead in unity and solidarity for our
common survival. The people are tired of war; they
want food security and life-saving human progress.
They want creative leisure and the right to a coherent
and planned future for their families and themselves,
devoid of fear and heart-rending traumas of violence.
We have before us the current report of the
Working Group — the full title is unduly
cumbersome — which, for more than six years now,
has been dealing with the reform and increase in the
membership of the Security Council. When the report
is debated, Namibia will give its specific views on its
content. Suffice it for me to take this opportunity to
heartily commend and congratulate Ambassadors John
de Saram of Sri Lanka and Hans Dahlgren of Sweden,
who served as Vice-Chairmen under my leadership, for
their total devotion and hard work that produced that
thoughtful report.
I strongly urge Member States to read the report
carefully and reflect on the constructive proposals that
are offered in it. While the negotiations on reform must
continue, and given the fact that we now have a much
clearer picture in respect of the specific open questions,
we should revisit the earlier — all or nothing —
“package deal” approach. The reform process cannot
just continue ad infinitum.
It was by no means meant to become an end in
itself. We ought to take a cue from the urgings of the
world leaders to move on and show concrete progress
as soon as possible. The emphasis on the role of the
United Nations in the twenty-first century necessarily
means that we complete the overall reform without
further delay, so that the United Nations can perform
that role effectively. For the developing countries, the
hour is already too late. We have nothing to gain by
dragging our feet.
I would like also, in just a few words, to express
my astonishment about the contradictory comments
that I heard recently about the question of good

governance. Domestically, in the developing countries,
good governance has been turned into a sort of a rigid
dogma by foreign Powers. But when we call for rapid
democratization of and transparency in international
relations, open trade and financial rules and good
governance, they simply ignore our views willy-nilly.
What do we make of this paradox?
At least we have now agreed that there is no
commonly accepted definition and practice of good
governance anywhere. This was established during the
consultations for the Millennium Summit's
preparations. It is therefore better for us from now on
to put more emphasis on transparent and accountable
governance, based on the rule of law, while we
continue debating its essential properties that are
acceptable to all.
At this stage, I will touch on some issues that
require reiterating for clarity's sake. To begin with,
South-North dialogue encompasses a broad field, from
political and diplomatic exchanges through trade,
poverty eradication, investment, technology,
industrialization, capacity-building and financing for
development to the empowering of people.
A recent cover story in Time magazine featured
our esteemed Secretary-General. It called him a
dreamer. But, to my mind, in today's world of doomed
pragmatists and cynics who try to defy any belief in the
possibility of a better world for all of us, how
refreshing it is that the United Nations is led by an
African who is not afraid to dream! In a variation on
the lyrics of a popular song, what the world needs now
are bold dreamers whose knowledge of the challenges
to humanity cannot be questioned, but who believe in
the capacity of men and women to rise above their best,
to move even farther beyond the horizons of human
capability.
That said, questions relating to development,
politics, economics, finance and security unavoidably
overlap. So also do the challenges of world peace,
human rights, human development and human security,
social change and prosperity. We cannot, therefore,
avoid stressing inclusive and interdependent global
governance that militates against war, fear and want.
Only in this way will all of us be able to partake
together in a culture of peace, dialogue, sharing and the
common advancement of humanity.
In such a kinder and inclusive world that we wish
to live in, a dreadful notion of humanitarian
intervention, by whatever name, does not fit in. Many
of us expressed strong reactions against it as a
dangerous idea when it surfaced last year. Namibia
remains unconvinced and will continue to oppose any
form of unilateral humanitarian intervention outside the
Charter. Whether we like it or not, this is still a world
of diktat by the rich and the powerful against the poor,
the weak and the vulnerable. The South is incapable of
initiating any humanitarian intervention in the North.
But the reverse is not only possible; it can be an
ominous certainty. Can Kuwait, Cyprus, Saint Lucia or
Namibia really dare launch any humanitarian
intervention anywhere in the world? They just cannot.
Quite simply, in a world of lopsided military might,
humanitarian intervention is yet another code-name for
colonization. This issue is on the agenda and will no
doubt be debated again in the Assembly. Namibia will
air its strong views when we come to that.
The Charter shows the best way forward to ensure
the maintenance of international peace and security.
What we, the Member States, should concentrate on,
therefore, is to speed up the tardy process of reforming,
restructuring and democratizing our Organization the
better to pursue its lofty goals and to implement the
resolutions and decisions that enjoy overwhelming
consensus.
This, in a way, brings up the excellent and timely
Brahimi report (A/55/305) on United Nations peace
operations. The report constitutes a major building
block which can provide a basis for discussing and
resolving all relevant issues and ideas for concerted
efforts in the field of preventive diplomacy, conflict
resolution and all other challenges and problems of
peacekeeping and peace-building.
The next subject I want to deal with is the
recently signed United Nations Global Compact with
transnational corporations, this time initiated by the
United Nations. We in Namibia, a country which
actively promotes smart partnerships and win-win
outcomes for government and business, labour and
other key players in civil society, see this move as a
welcome beginning. However, as is said, trust but
verify.
Not too long ago the United Nations used to
maintain at Headquarters a watchdog centre for
transnational corporations to monitor their nefarious
global activities and sinister dirty tricks against the
12

interests of the people. It was closed down for reasons
not yet known.
Many of us from the developing countries ought
to remember the call by our leaders in the 1970s for a
new international economic order and what became of
it. The United Nations Centre on Transnational
Corporations was a sincere undertaking to establish a
data bank and provide Member States with relevant
information for follow-up and decision-making. The
call for a new international economic order was the
South's version of globalization. Yet our leaders were
discredited and the initiative itself was
unceremoniously killed. Its replacement is already
wreaking havoc on our slender prospects for
meaningful economic autonomy.
Today, out there in the real world, many armies of
grassroots organizations and progressive trade unions
are back again on the streets demanding the
democratization of international economic and trade
relations, transparency, accountability, justice and fair
play for the poor, the weak and the vulnerable. This is
not a passing wave, but a telling sign of things yet to
come.
The United Nations should, therefore, avoid
being caught in the middle of the crossfire. The
situation requires vigilance and leadership to ensure
that the corporations do not entangle the Organization
in their unsavoury dealings, as some of them are
already being accused of doing. I am aware of the
written commitments, agreed rules and broad principles
in the Compact. But that is one thing. That aside, this is
only the beginning, and things will perhaps go wrong
down the road. I myself encouraged constructive
partnership between the United Nations and the private
sector. That does not mean, however, that all that
glitters is gold.
One more matter of deep interest to my country,
and indeed to Africa, is information and
communication technology — ICT. The information
and communication technology revolution is the most
significant social, political and economic phenomenon
since the Industrial Revolution. Its ability to transform
societies is commonly acknowledged. Several weeks
ago the Economic and Social Council summit, held
here at United Nations Headquarters, focused totally on
it.
Yet, ironically, and to some extent in an uncanny
way, this economic panacea has been presented to
Africa not as a tool for self-development and jump-
starting global competitiveness, but as yet another
“crime of incapacity” used to further overburden an
already embattled people.
Our challenge, the challenge to all of us here, and
to all those who have had a head start in mobilizing
this new capacity for the creation of wealth and a better
world, is: what can we do, what must we do, to enable
Africa and other developing countries to gain access to
the tools of information and communication
technology, so that we can take ownership of our own
social development and achieve full employment and
prosperity?
Those who control this powerhouse must act
quickly and generously to share the benefits of this
magic wand, especially since the sons and daughters of
Africa and of the developing world are in fact among
the major players in creating this new knowledge. To
those who may begrudge Africa's access to information
and communication technology, I say, “Just think: if
information and communication technology enables
Africa to create wealth rather than manage poverty,
then in a few years Africa will be so developed that
you will no longer have to endure the guilt of turning
us away from your front steps.”
In thanking the Secretary-General and his loyal
Deputy, Ms. Louise Frechette, for their unstinting
support and encouragement, I would be remiss if I did
not also mention the General Assembly's chief
stewards and staff members for their expertise and hard
work. I extend the same sentiments to the security and
protocol officers for rendering such outstanding
professional services. My heartfelt gratitude goes to
one and all.
In conclusion, for Namibia the year 2000 brought
rededication to service, celebration and thanksgiving. It
meant awesome responsibilities in the General
Assembly, including during the Millennium Summit; in
the Security Council; in the World Health Assembly;
and lately in the chairmanship of the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC), our subregional
body. One needs allies, friends and partners for all this
to happen, and we are lucky to have many of them
throughout the world. We sincerely express our
immense indebtedness to all of them.
I know that I have been long-winded. I had a few
things to say.
13


Allow me at the outset to congratulate Mr. Holkeri on
his election to the presidency of the General Assembly
and to assure him of the full cooperation of the
delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the
discharge of his important responsibilities. I wish also
to register our appreciation for the efforts of his
predecessor, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, the Foreign
Minister of Namibia. My thanks and gratitude also go
to our Secretary-General for his tireless and
constructive endeavours on behalf of the Organization.
The world is currently undergoing the most
radical changes ever experienced by mankind. In such
a rapidly changing environment, the main challenge
facing the United Nations is to keep pace with events
and try to play a leading role in directing their course
in a way more compatible with the interests of the
overwhelming majority of the world's population. The
recently concluded Millennium Summit provided a
unique opportunity for global leaders to draw up a
collective agenda for addressing this historic challenge.
As the sole universal body, the United Nations is
uniquely positioned to be the instrument of democratic
global change. It can help to ensure that the process of
change and transformation in the global system is
participatory and fair. The focus of our attention at the
global level over the past 55 years has been on the
preservation of international peace, security and
stability. Despite the tremendous economic and
technological progress that has been achieved, justice
29

and universal participation in decision-making and in
the benefits of peace and progress have attracted less
global attention and fewer resources.
As the Secretary-General points out in his
millennium report, the benefits and costs of
globalization have not been evenly distributed. While
world trade has increased more than ten-fold since
1950, over half of the world population continues to
live on less than $2 a day and three quarters of the
world population earn less than 20 per cent of total
global income. The common destiny of humanity in the
age of globalization requires us to reject the illusion of
building islands of affluence, prosperity and stability in
a turbulent sea of war, poverty, disease, ignorance and
insecurity.
Globalization is an economic, social and cultural
reality. It should not just be allowed to happen — it is a
reality that we can and should collectively manage.
One key task is to ensure that the benefits of
globalization are more evenly distributed. The
millennium report of the Secretary-General sets out a
number of realistic and quantifiable targets. Necessary
resources need to be committed and those who have
been mostly on the receiving end of the benefits of
globalization have an added responsibility. The United
Nations machinery should direct and coordinate
bilateral and multilateral efforts in this regard.
Globalization has also further complicated the
global menaces of terrorism, organized crime and drug
trafficking, necessitating the adoption of common and
rule-based strategies to fight and eradicate them.
Terrorism afflicts the entire international community
and must thus be combated in its entirety, regardless of
who its victims or perpetrators may be. In a globalized
world, nothing can justify harbouring or providing safe
haven to terrorists or condoning their activities. No
nation can fight terrorism unilaterally. We need
universal, non-discriminatory and comprehensive
mechanisms to fight terrorism wherever it occurs and
to deprive terrorists of their means of recruitment,
operation and funding.
The role of the United Nations in this regard is
indispensable. In this context, particular attention
needs to be focused on cooperation in the field of
transnational organized crime and drug trafficking,
which, in addition to inflicting their own banes on
humanity, increasingly provide income to terrorist
organizations. We are prepared to participate actively
in any endeavour to combat this scourge.
The menace of drug abuse and trafficking
continues to take a heavy social, economic and
political toll. It particularly afflicts young people, who
embody the future. Combating drug trafficking is a
costly exercise and requires international political will
and serious burden-sharing. The provision of
meaningful financial resources and modern equipment
by target countries can enable transit countries, such as
ours, to combat the problem at a fraction of the cost.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has done more than
its fair share in preventing transit, seizing more than 70
per cent of all narcotics confiscated worldwide. The
financial burden and, more importantly, the human
sacrifice are unsustainable. More than 2,900 Iranian
drug enforcement personnel have been martyred in the
fight against drug traffickers. We appreciate the
cooperation and support extended to Iran by the United
Nations International Drug Control Programme in this
regard, although its limited resources cannot cover the
programmes it wants and needs to implement. It is
important to stress that, in the absence of meaningful
bilateral and multilateral assistance, the Islamic
Republic of Iran will have to allocate most resources to
combating domestic consumption and will not be able
to sustain its fight against drug trafficking with the
same vigour and energy.
As underlined by President Khatami here last
week, the emergence of a world culture is another
reality. But such a culture should not overlook native
local cultures with the aim of imposing itself upon
them. National cultures have gradually evolved in a
process ensuring coherence in spite of the plurality and
diversity that is found in many of them. This process
creates a sense of belonging.
We need the same harmony and sense of
belonging for the emerging world culture. The answer
is participation and not assimilation and imposition.
Last year, I proposed recognition of the right of nations
and peoples to preserve and nourish their culture and
cultural identity. The General Assembly adopted
resolution 54/160 in this regard. We continue to believe
that in the process of globalization, it is essential to
recognize and respect cultural rights of individuals and
communities.
We should transform globalization, particularly in
the area of culture, into a democratic, participatory and
30

natural process of globality. The United Nations can
facilitate this process by promoting dialogue for the
exchange of knowledge, experience and understanding
in diverse areas of culture and civilization. The
promotion of global participation in the process will
prevent a sense of alienation and “cultural
homelessness” in major parts of the world.
The designation of the year 2001 as the United
Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations is the
first step in this direction. The unprecedented
worldwide reception of this proposal indicates first and
foremost a general need for dialogue. The round table
on dialogue among civilizations, which was held here
in New York on the eve of the Millennium Summit
with the participation of a significant number of heads
of State, Foreign Ministers and prominent scholars and
thinkers, underlined that dialogue should become the
new paradigm of international relations. This
constituted a proper launching of the United Nations
Year of Dialogue. It must be augmented by serious
programmes and the commitment of all to make this a
meaningful reality which should persist in human
experience long after the United Nations Year of
Dialogue ends. In this context, the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC), which is currently chaired
by President Khatami, has recently adopted a draft
“global agenda on dialogue among civilizations”, to be
submitted to the General Assembly at its fifty-sixth
session. We hope that in the course of the next several
months, consultations between various delegations will
lead to further enrichment and the adoption of this draft
at the next General Assembly.
The United Nations can naturally play a leading
role in the democratic global change in the political
scene. Crises in disparate parts of the world challenge
the relevance of the United Nations, requiring it not to
take the back seat.
The situation of Palestine represents a vivid
illustration of the failure of the international
community to provide justice to millions of people
deprived of their homeland and the most fundamental
human rights through State terrorism, aggression and
foreign occupation. Of over 7.5 million Palestinians, 4
million live in diaspora, and many of the rest under
foreign domination. This lies at the heart of the
Palestinian question. Disregarding the joint processes
of expulsion and occupation cannot lead to the
restoration of peace and tranquillity in that volatile
region. In fact, Israel's persistent disregard for the
rights of the Palestinian people, coupled with Zionist
policies of aggression, State terrorism and acquisition
of weapons of mass destruction, continue to pose the
greatest threat to regional peace, security and stability.
Palestine belongs to all Palestinians irrespective of
their creed. Peace can return to the region only through
an end to the occupation of all Arab and Muslim
territories, including the Golan Heights, the restoration
of the rights of Palestinian people, including their right
to return to their homeland, the exercise of their
inalienable right to self-determination through
democratic means and the establishment of their
independent State with Al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital.
The persistence of the tragic fratricide in
Afghanistan, along with the dire humanitarian
situation, violations of human rights, particularly those
of women and girls, the production and trafficking of
narcotics and the harbouring and training of terrorists
have created a human catastrophe. Peace and national
reconciliation can be attained only through abandoning
the illusion of a military solution and the domination of
one ethnic group. The United Nations, through the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General and
the “six plus two” Group, continues to provide the
most suitable mechanism to facilitate intra-Afghan
dialogue aimed at a responsible, broad-based, multi-
ethnic and fully representative government. The
Islamic Republic of Iran has played an active role in
this process. Also, in his capacity as Chairman of the
OIC, President Khatami has undertaken an initiative to
bring the warring factions to negotiations. We are
prepared to continue this exercise in close coordination
with the United Nations.
There are other humanitarian challenges emerging
globally, requiring the United Nations to respond.
Failure to act may bring about arbitrary and
selective — and, naturally, politically motivated —
responses from States and non-universal organizations.
The articulation of the criteria for rule-based reaction
and the allocation of necessary resources and capacity-
building in the United Nations for timely response
constitute two major tasks ahead. As the Secretary-
General has pointed out, prevention through diplomacy
and economic development is the most effective and
least costly type of global engagement.
Good-governance at the international level
requires the provision of rational and comprehensive
mechanisms to ensure security for all. Nuclear
disarmament is the most fundamental priority in this
31

regard. It is imperative to initiate multilateral
negotiations for the elimination of all nuclear weapons,
within a time-bound framework and through a
comprehensive and universal convention. The proposal
of the Secretary-General to convene an international
conference on nuclear weapons is a valuable
contribution; such a conference could build upon our
collective achievement during the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.
Furthermore, following the outcome of the NPT
Review Conference, serious and comprehensive
international pressure should come to bear on Israel to
accede to the Treaty and to put its installations under
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
safeguards. This would pave the way for the
establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass
destruction in the Middle East.
Finally, in reforming global governance, the role
and efficiency of the General Assembly, as the sole
democratic, universal and transparent organ of the
United Nations, must be augmented. It should focus its
deliberations on contemporary challenges rather than
hold outdated debates, coupled with effective responses
to the reports of other organs of the United Nations,
particularly the Security Council.
Efforts to work out a special political role for the
United Nations come at a time when the Organization
is in one of the worst periods of its existence from a
financial perspective. The tasks that the international
community expects the United Nations to fulfil require
more innovative ways of raising money for the smooth
functioning of the Organization.
In this context, it may be instructive to remember
that if only a tiny percentage of the military
expenditures of the Member States were allocated to
the specific activities of the United Nations, the goal of
creating a more secure global environment would be
much more efficiently achieved.
The current session of the General Assembly
follows the Millennium Summit, the Inter-
Parliamentary Union summit, the global gathering of
religious leaders and the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization roundtable on
dialogue among civilizations. As such, it represents a
tremendous and historic opportunity to take advantage
of the political will expressed in those unprecedented
gatherings, to operationalize their declarations and
decisions, and to move the United Nations forward to
an era of stability, justice, peace and good governance,
through participation and the rule of law.
Commensurate with such a historic opportunity, we are
all accountable before our own people and the people
of the world.