This session is being held amid a very sensitive and
delicate international situation which is generally
characterized by political and socio-economic concerns.
This is particularly evident all over the developing world,
which is overpopulated and simultaneously overburdened
with problems of backwardness and the challenges of
development. The hopes that were raised with the end of
the cold war, heralding the advent of a new era in which
cooperation and détente would prevail, soon were shattered
in the midst of these problems and these concerns. We are
currently facing conflicting phenomena, where elements of
complementarity and integration coincide with tendencies
towards division and disunity. The technology and
communications revolution runs parallel to the eruption of
national conflicts and ethnic animosities. Ambitions of
leadership overlap practices of hegemony. This has created
a serious conceptual confusion which the international
order, in its current form, cannot address in an effective or
deterring manner. Indeed, this order, due to its obvious
double standards, might have contributed to the
intensification of the era’s negative aspects at the expense
of its positive aspects and gains.
Certainly, the logic of evolution and the rules of
transformation indicate that the stages of change carry
within them a potential risk as well as elements of rivalry,
unless an objective and conducive environment exists,
accompanied by a forward-looking vision and a set of
highly advanced values that are crystallized through
coordinated and concerted efforts. This is precisely what
did not happen. The dichotomy between the North and the
South is widening. The lack of common understanding
among world cultures and civilizations is still present.
This has caused discord in world thinking and created
mutual suspicions that not only pose an overwhelming
threat, jeopardizing the march of political progress and
the activities of economic development as well as the
fabric of social development, but also have raised
questions as to whether the benefits of science and
technology lead to world security and stability, or quite
the opposite.
In connection with contemporary international
politics, it is really most alarming that attempts are being
made to marginalize the United Nations at a time when
the world is in need of further understanding, better
coordination and accelerated interdependence. It would
have been more logical to call for the strengthening of
this Organization, so that it could perform its role in
achieving these objectives in a truly democratic manner,
with the participation of all the countries of the world
with their diverse cultures, societies, sizes, orientations
and achievements. This is particularly true since the
United Nations Charter, in our view — a view shared by
many others — still represents a major instrument
governing international life, and since any international
order, be it old or new, must be based on a solid
foundation that respects rights, determines obligations and
opens the door to an era of interaction among societies on
the basis of acceptance and understanding, not imposition
or oppression.
We are definitely aware that the challenges of
tomorrow are different from those of yesterday. We are
also aware that the United Nations, in its current culture,
may not be able, one way or another, to deal with future
challenges. However, this must be a subject for discussion
to build consensus among us, not a matter to be
determined by a few or to be decided unilaterally.
For these reasons, it is imperative to strive
collectively to build a common political will to strengthen
the United Nations, to enhance its effectiveness and to
restore its credibility in order to maintain world stability
and security.
The annals of this Organization abound with
historical achievements and it continues to make progress
in dealing with the problems of our world. An in-depth
reading of the Secretary-General’s reports on political,
17

economic and social situations in the world reassures us of
this role and we urge that it be upheld, because it addresses
the present and explores the prospects for the future
through global understanding.
The Secretary-General’s role in developing a rational
basis for worldwide development activities has succeeded
in focusing attention on the issues of our times through a
series of conferences held over the past five years on the
environment, human rights, population, social development,
women and human settlements. These represent important
reference points for global action based on international
consensus in dealing with problems that were once marginal
but are today substantial. We call on the Secretary-General
to pursue this approach, which allows the United Nations
to stand out in a distinctive and positive way in a world of
growing negativity.
A strengthened role, reform and enhanced efficiency
are our common objectives for the United Nations. The
historic Declaration issued last year by the Heads of State
and Government on the fiftieth anniversary of the United
Nations constitutes a cornerstone for the future work of the
Organization. The Declaration contained a clear conceptual
framework for global action on the basis of the priorities
upon which we all agreed: peace based on the principles
and provisions of the Charter and supported by an effective
regime of collective security; development in all its aspects
in the social and economic fields; sovereign equality among
States and respect for peoples’ rights; and justice in
addressing the various issues on the international agenda.
Egypt deems it necessary to translate these noble principles
into clear programmes of action that take into consideration
the interests of all without discrimination.
When we met here last year to celebrate the United
Nations fiftieth anniversary, we were dismayed by the
events in the Great Lakes region in Africa, where
horrendous massacres had left a painful humanitarian
legacy. We were disturbed by the events in Bosnia, where
United Nations “safe areas” had been overrun and innocent
people had lost their lives in despicable ethnic strife.
However, we were optimistic at that time about
developments in the Middle East. The Interim Agreement
had been signed between President Yasser Arafat and the
late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, and described
as an important step on the path to finding a solution to the
question of Palestine. Has the situation changed or evolved
for the better?
Let us look into last year’s developments in that
region. In recent months, the Middle East has undergone a
crisis that has almost stifled the peace process, a crisis
resulting from the reluctance of the Israeli Government to
act in keeping with the agreed fundamentals of peace.
This position has threatened a return to the language,
concepts, policies and even practices that were on the eve
of extinction in the region. Thus, action on all peace
tracks was deadlocked and the peace process stagnated.
This prompted Egypt, which initiated that process and
believes in a just and balanced Arab-Israeli peace, to
intensify efforts to rectify the situation and consolidate the
fundamentals of this process, first among which is the
“land for peace” principle.
In this context, I would like to put forward the Arab
position as contained in the final communiqué of the
summit held in Cairo last June. The attending Arab
leaders unanimously expressed their keen interest in the
continuation of the process of making a just and
comprehensive peace an Arab strategic option under
international legality. This Arab position requires a
corresponding commitment, seriously and unequivocally
undertaken by Israel, to abide by the principles agreed
upon at the Madrid Conference, particularly the “land for
peace” principle and the assurances provided to the
parties. The Arab leaders stressed that any breach by
Israel of these principles or of the bases in which the
peace process is anchored; any reneging on the
commitments, undertakings or agreements made in the
framework of this process; or any procrastination in their
implementation would set back the peace process, with all
the risks and repercussions involved. This could replunge
the region into an atmosphere of tension and would force
all Arab countries to reconsider the steps taken vis-à-vis
Israel within the framework of the peace process. In such
a case, the Israeli Government alone would assume full
responsibility.
The Arab leaders emphasized that there would be no
recognition or acceptance of any situation resulting from
Israeli settlement activity in the occupied Arab territories,
since the settlements are considered an illegal measure
that entails no rights and establishes no obligations. The
establishment of settlements and the bringing in of settlers
violate international law and the Madrid framework and
impede the peace process, which requires Israel to halt all
settlement activities in the occupied territories. The Arab
leaders also emphasized that a just and comprehensive
peace in the Middle East can be achieved only through a
resolution of the questions of Al-Quds and the Palestinian
refugees on the basis of their rights of return and to
compensation, in accordance with international legality
and United Nations resolutions.
18

A short while ago, the new Israeli Prime Minister met
with the Palestinian President. Undoubtedly, their meeting
represents progress towards their mutual recognition as
partners on an equal footing in the Palestinian-Israeli peace
process. In theory, the peace process should proceed to
implement the commitments made under the Oslo Accords
in accordance with the agreed timetable, but that has not
yet happened.
We are interested not in handshakes or wide smiles for
photo opportunities, but rather in substantive developments.
Thus, what is required and what we should all strive for is
the implementation of commitments, serious negotiation and
time well spent. We call upon the entire world to follow up
the matter with us with full vigilance and to allow neither
retrogression nor the manipulation of very sensitive and
serious matters, namely, the establishment of a permanent
contractual peace between Palestine and Israel that fulfils
the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and
culminates in their exercise of their right to self-
determination under international supervision and the
establishment of a Palestinian State. This peace must also
achieve security for Israel and all parties on an equal
footing.
Israel is called upon to desist from its settlement
policy, including the expansion of settlements, and to end
its policies of closing territories and besieging the
Palestinian people. It is called upon to honour its
commitments, redeploy its troops outside Hebron and
resume without further delay the final status negotiations.
Israel is also called upon to put an end to its practices in
Al-Quds, a city where any rights that could be claimed by
Israel are outweighed by Arab rights, which are more
ancient, legitimate and authentic than any Israeli claim to
the city.
On the Syrian track, I can say in all honesty and with
full confidence that Syria is ready to resume the
negotiations suspended last February at Israel’s request. The
negotiations should resume at the point at which they
stopped, which is fair, and in accordance with the Madrid
framework and the principle of “land for peace“, which is
right.
From this rostrum, Egypt calls for the resumption of
these negotiations. Israel must refrain from pursuing
policies and formulations that may be interpreted as
squandering years of negotiations and that constitute a
regression from principles that have become an integral part
of the rules for peaceful work in the region and are backed
by international legality and supported by broad
international consensus.
On the Lebanese track, we call for the
implementation of Security Council resolution 425 (1978)
and Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon, to which
Israeli officials have repeatedly stated they have no
territorial claim.
Peace in the Middle East will not be comprehensive
or lasting until a strict regime for regional security is
established, based on arrangements that provide equal
security for all parties with minimum levels of armament.
The region must be totally free from all weapons of
mass destruction — nuclear, chemical and biological —
and their delivery systems. Peace and security cannot
survive in the presence of any instability in the balance of
power or serious discrepancy in the rights and obligations
of the countries of the region.
Furthermore, we are closely watching the huge
Israeli arsenal, which includes weapons of mass
destruction, missiles and anti-missile weapons. We
wonder about the rationale behind it. We believe that it
has, indeed, led to a reaction by a number of countries in
the region to this serious escalation, at a time when we
are all talking of peace. Given this fact — or, rather, to
avoid its consequences — Egypt proposes the initiation of
effective negotiations to establish a zone free from all
weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.
President Hosni Mubarak has been making such a
proposal since April 1990.
Egypt calls upon the permanent members of the
Security Council and the depositary States of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
which sponsored and adopted the resolution on the
Middle East during the Review and Extension Conference
of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, to take specific steps to establish a
nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East in
accordance with the Egyptian initiative, which has
enjoyed the consensus of all the States concerned since
1980.
While Egypt stresses the fact that arms control and
regional security constitute one of the pillars of peace and
stability in the Middle East, it also believes that economic
and regional cooperation under a just peace constitutes
another such pillar. Regional cooperation is inseparable
from the establishment of peace: peace is its essence and
19

its framework. Two sessions of the Middle East-North
Africa Economic Summit have been held, in Casablanca
and in Amman, the capital of Jordan. Both were held in an
atmosphere of optimism that the peace process would
succeed. Indeed, there have been some successes, such as
the signing of the interim agreement between Israel and
Palestine, and the holding of direct negotiations between
Syria and Israel. They took place against the background of
a receding settlement policy and continuous discussion
about peace and its objectives. However, today we see the
exact opposite. This state of affairs threatens peace, its
framework and all that is associated with it, including
regional cooperation, which can prosper only in an
atmosphere of peace and hope for the future. We therefore
call upon Israel to return to the fundamental framework of
peace in accordance with the agreements concluded, the
terms of reference established and the principles approved.
While Egypt is in favour of holding the third
Economic Summit as scheduled — like others, we have a
great deal to contribute in the fields of economic reform,
investment and development — we call upon the sponsors
of the peace process, especially the United States, to strive
to create the conditions that could lead to the successful
convening of the Summit. That can be achieved only by
making serious endeavours on all peace tracks, in terms of
both negotiation and implementation. We are making this
declaration before the entire international community, so
that every party will discharge its responsibilities and
honour its commitments. If they do not, the balance will be
disturbed and the issue will become meaningless.
Peace in the Middle East is contingent upon justice,
balance and honesty in negotiating and addressing the needs
of peoples. From this stems the open Egyptian diplomacy
that regards the current situation as a matter of utmost
seriousness. We once again reiterate that Egypt rejects any
measure that results in an unbalanced peace that satisfies
the interests of one party at the expense of another. The
peace that we aspire to is a balanced Arab-Israeli peace that
reciprocates right for right, security for security, and
commitment for commitment.
A just and comprehensive peace is the cornerstone of
stability in the Middle East. Despite the unpropitious
attitude of the new Israeli Government to the peace process,
right alone will eventually prevail. Peace will impose itself,
propelled by the desire of the peoples of the region,
including the people of Israel, to live in genuine peace,
cooperation and stability.
Egypt, whose people contributed to laying the
foundations of human civilization, has for centuries
accepted and continues to accept the imperatives of
geography and history, which give Egypt special
responsibilities for the affairs of our region and beyond.
Egypt takes the initiative for peace, seeks prosperity,
prompts enlightenment and is steadfastly involved in
advancing the march of progress.
Egypt therefore empathizes with the agony of the
region and the repercussions of developments there.
While peace in the Middle East is at a crucial stage, the
Gulf region, which is part of the Middle East, is also
undergoing a number of unfavourable developments. The
stability of the Gulf region is, for more than one reason,
linked to the ultimate interests of Egypt and its security.
In particular, it is an area endowed with a potential and
with characteristics that make its stability and security a
matter of significance to all Powers concerned with
international peace and security.
The result of our review of the succession of events
in this area leads us to several conclusions. First, strict
compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iraq,
without fail or divergences, is the only way to guarantee
the end of the crisis that erupted in August 1990.
Secondly, the use of force cannot restore rights or rectify
wrongs. Thus, the rights of the Iraqi people, the
maintenance of its unity and respect for the rights and
well-being of Iraqis, whether Arabs or Kurds, will remain
the major concern of all of us. We are equally concerned
with safeguarding the rights of the people of Kuwait and
the return of detainees and property.
Thirdly, the memorandum of understanding on the
oil-for-food resolution, which was reached after arduous
negotiations, must be put into effect without any further
delay to alleviate the suffering of our brothers, the Iraqi
people.
Fourthly, compromising territorial integrity and the
unity of Iraq is not only a breach of international law but
will open the door to major repercussions undermining
regional stability and threatening the interests of
neighbouring countries.
Fifthly, the withdrawal of Iran from the three islands
of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Musa, Tunb as
Sughra and Tunb al Kubra — is a sine qua non condition
for defusing another hotbed of tension. The Arab call to
Iran to settle amicably any territorial claims to those
islands is still valid.
20

Sixthly, the policy of intervention and the attempts to
manipulate ethnic and religious minorities to destabilize
other neighbouring countries cannot help to establish
stability in the Gulf region or the wider region of the
Middle East, or help ensure the interests of any of the
parties concerned, in addition to its being a flagrant
violation of the rules of international conduct.
Before leaving the issue of the Middle East, I would
like to refer to the dispute between Libya and some
Western countries, a dispute to which we attach particular
importance because of its repercussions for the region as
well as the damage and suffering it inflicts on our brothers,
the people of Libya, on the economies of the neighbouring
countries and on the stability of the region in general. In
view of our keen interest in averting an escalation of the
problem and in expediting the attainment of an early
settlement, we support the efforts and initiatives made by
the League of Arab States, the Organization of African
Unity (OAU) and the Non-Aligned Movement, and call for
a positive response to those efforts and initiatives.
Moving from the Middle East to Africa, we find
stories of success and of failure — pictures both bleak and
bright. While our sister country Rwanda has restored its
stability and launched its reconstruction and development,
its neighbour, our sister Burundi, is an example of the real
turmoil which is affecting the entire Great Lakes region.
Last year we expressed our extreme dismay at the situation
in this important region; today we reiterate this, and stress
the need for the Security Council to discharge its
responsibilities to avert the recurrence of Rwanda’s tragedy
in Burundi.
There is, however, a positive element that we hope
will not be lost in the disappointment over the deteriorating
situation in Africa: the efforts of the OAU, which have
started to take shape within an institutional framework that
we hope will be successful. This was embodied in the
establishment of the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention,
Management and Resolution, which will play a role in
resolving the problems of the continent. The countries and
the leaders of the Great Lakes region, particularly former
President Nyerere, have played a laudable collective role in
reconciliation, dealing with the question of refugees and the
rampant ethnic rivalries in the region. Serious efforts were
also made by the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS) to settle the Liberian problem,
particularly by Nigeria, which has made continuing efforts
during its current chairmanship of that subregional group.
We commend the efforts made by Ghana during its
chairmanship of ECOWAS over the past two years. We call
on the international community, and the United Nations
in particular, to support all of these efforts and to provide
the necessary means for their success.
This applies also to the numerous efforts made to
achieve national reconciliation in Somalia, the
implementation of the Lusaka Protocol in Angola and the
settlement plan in Western Sahara. We hope that the
parties concerned will benefit from these historic
opportunities, so that stability will prevail in Africa and
so that international support for these efforts will
continue, particularly in terms of post-conflict
rehabilitation and socio-economic reconstruction.
In this context, I should like to draw attention to the
gravity of the continued deterioration of the socio-
economic situation in the African continent, which
includes two-thirds of the world’s least-developed
countries; one-third of its population is facing starvation.
Despite this fact, the countries of the continent are
tenaciously striving towards economic reform, structural
adjustment, strengthening regional cooperation among
themselves and dealing with the social situation in the
continent in accordance with the Declaration issued in
Cairo in March 1995.
These efforts are still faltering as a result of
diminishing international support and a lack of necessary
financial resources. Thus we support the United Nations
System-Wide Special Initiative for Africa presented last
March by the Secretary-General based upon
comprehensive mobilization of resources and full
participation of international institutions. Hence, we call
upon donor countries and upon the international
community to take the necessary measures to deal with
the critical economic situation in Africa, particularly the
external debt problem, by providing the necessary
resources and creating an environment that will enable the
continent to join the march of development and to be able
to address its socio-economic problems, which represent
one of the root causes of political tension and instability
there.
The critical economic situation in Africa leads us to
voice some of the concerns of Egypt and the developing
countries vis-à-vis the world’s economy. Suffice it here to
make a reference to the importance of the faithful
implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements and the
necessity to address the negative impact on the net food
importing countries. We look forward to the success of
the first ministerial conference of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), to be held in Singapore. We would
21

like to highlight the importance of focusing on the
implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements without
attempting to raise new issues such as those pertaining to
investment and the linkage between international trade, on
the one hand, and labour and environment, on the other.
Any proposed additional issues should be subject to in-
depth study. We reiterate the leading and important role of
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) in this regard prior to bringing such issues to
the WTO for consideration.
Turning to Bosnia, there is hope of implementing the
Dayton agreement to put an end to the appalling tragedy
caused by “ethnic cleansing” and racist narrow-mindedness.
The agreement will be implemented under international
protection, represented by the Implementation Force
(IFOR), to which Egypt and numerous other countries
contribute. Despite all the circumstances associated with the
election process, its results are still a source of optimism in
the possible victory of the forces of moderation so that
Bosnia can become a multi-ethnic State where Serbs,
Muslims and Croats live together in peace.
Egypt welcomes the election of President Izetbejovic
as President of the tripartite Presidential Council. In this
respect we would like to stress a number of points which
we think can guarantee the stability of the situation and
ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Dayton
agreement. First, it is important to consolidate the territorial
integrity of Bosnia, to reject vehemently and strictly any
attempts at partition and to respect the democratic process
and the results of elections. Secondly, it is necessary to
assist the State of Bosnia in completing the necessary
components of building its national army and to provide it
with the equipment it needs to deter any external threat or
face a new collapse of the internal situation after IFOR
withdraws. Thirdly, it is necessary to provide the economic
support Bosnia needs to rebuild and rehabilitate the country,
since this will represent support for the foundations of
coexistence and peace among its three ethnic groups.
Fourthly, it is essential to punish the war criminals.
Otherwise, talking about human rights in the world will be
futile and will be considered as an entrenchment of double
standards.
The phenomenon of terrorism has become exacerbated
and now knows no boundaries. We must all implement the
Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International
Terrorism, which was adopted at the forty-ninth session.
Terrorists must find no refuge in any civilized country. We
must all cooperate in uprooting all sources of terrorism. We
must construct a well-defined legal system that ensures the
pursuit of those who are responsible for terrorism, and
their prosecution and extradition to stand trial for the
crimes they have perpetrated, crimes that terrorize
peaceful people and threaten international stability. We
must define clear criteria and rules that guarantee that the
right of political asylum will not be extended to the
undeserving, so that that right will not become a licence
encouraging terrorists and protecting them from
prosecution and punishment.
Terrorism is an international phenomenon that is not
linked to a particular geographic region or to a particular
civilization, culture or religion. We have witnessed the
evidence, ranging from the Far East to the Middle East,
to Europe, and to America. Terrorism has even come
close to this very building. The entire international
community must harness the necessary resources to
confront this vicious aggressive phenomenon, to eradicate
its sources and to isolate whoever provides it with
assistance and encouragement. In this respect, I call on
the United Nations and the civilized peoples of the world
to respond swiftly to the call of President Hosni Mubarak
to hold an international conference to deal with the
criminal phenomenon of terrorism and, as a contribution
to peace and stability in the world at large — to mobilize
joint international efforts to combat it.
I began my statement with our perception of the role
of this Organization. I conclude it by paying tribute and
expressing my appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose expertise and insight have
contributed, during his current tenure, to the identification
of problems and challenges facing the international
community and this Organization. He has drawn up the
agenda on items under consideration as well as
approaches for dealing with them. The implementation of
this agenda is contingent upon the will and the interest of
the Member States.
As it reiterates its confidence in the Secretary-
General, a confidence shared by members of two of the
most prominent regional organizations — the Arab
League and the Organization of African Unity — Egypt
attaches high priority to seeing him preside over the
United Nations Secretariat for a second term, during
which he will have the chance to lead the Secretariat and
to take part in implementing the programmes he devised,
the reform process he designed and the solutions he
initiated to the problems facing the Organization,
problems that surface in an international arena witnessing
the birth of a new order whose features are not yet
defined, problems that occur as the United Nations passes
22

through a historic juncture, on the threshold of a new
century and a new millennium.


It gives me particular
pleasure to address the General Assembly at a session of
over which Malaysia has been elected to preside. Our two
countries are good friends, and Ambassador Razali is
personally known to and respected by us all. New Zealand
looks forward to a productive session under his leadership.
In just two weeks New Zealanders face a general
election. There are many subjects over which the various
political parties differ, but one thing remains quite clear: the
support of New Zealanders for the United Nations and the
rule of international law embodied in it.
For New Zealand, as for many other countries
represented here today — and especially smaller
countries — the primary purpose of the United Nations
remains to provide for a system of collective security. It
brings the nations of the world together in a grand coalition
to keep the peace, to help eliminate weapons of mass
destruction, to uphold human rights, to encourage good
governance, to protect the environment and to promote
economic and social development, including by
supporting the role of women.
Together, these activities, along with national and
regional initiatives, provide the underpinnings of the
system of collective security that we want to leave for our
children.
For New Zealanders, our confidence in the United
Nations was reaffirmed when, two weeks ago, the General
Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty. It gave me much satisfaction to sign the Treaty
earlier today on behalf of the Government and the people
of New Zealand. Agreement on a test ban has been a
New Zealand objective for more than three decades and
one we promoted in this Assembly, together with
Australia and Mexico. It reflects deeply held convictions
on the part of all New Zealanders.
New Zealand has argued, and will continue to argue,
for a world without nuclear weapons. Our belief that
these weapons of mass destruction can and should be
eliminated has been reinforced by the experiences of our
region as a testing ground for nuclear weapons. I am glad
to say it is an era now happily behind us.
For New Zealand, the Treaty represents first of all
an end to nuclear testing in our region and worldwide.
But even more, it puts real obstacles in the way of any
State seeking to refine or develop a nuclear arsenal. We

have taken a significant step on the way to eliminating
nuclear weapons entirely. Now, however, we must look
ahead.
The International Court of Justice, in its recent
Advisory Opinion on the legality of the use or threat of use
of nuclear weapons, set out our obligation in this regard:
the obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a
conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.
New Zealand believes that in 1997 all States, including
nuclear-weapon States, should pursue negotiations on a
phased programme of nuclear disarmament, with the
ultimate goals of the complete elimination of nuclear
weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament
under strict and effective international control.
We are better placed to make our contribution to such
negotiations because of the recent decision of the
Conference on Disarmament to admit New Zealand and 22
other countries as full members. As a reflection of the
importance we attach to its ongoing work, my Government
has now decided to appoint a full-time Disarmament
Ambassador to the Conference in Geneva.
Further steps towards a nuclear-free world are
recommended in the report of the Canberra Commission on
the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, released last month.
We hope that report will energize discussions at the
national level, particularly in the nuclear-weapon States.
The aspirations of many States to be free of nuclear
weapons have found expression in the establishment of
what are now four nuclear-weapon-free zones. Taken
together, the four relevant treaties have the potential to
cover some 114 nations and 1.7 billion people. My
Government has given considerable thought to ways in
which cooperation between nuclear-weapon-free zones can
be advanced. We are working with other Governments on
a draft resolution to be submitted to the Assembly at this
session, and New Zealand hopes it will receive wide
support.
The disarmament arena is only one where the United
Nations must continue to address serious challenges to our
collective security. When my Government took office in
October 1990, the international community faced the
challenge presented by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In the
heart of Europe, Yugoslavia was on the path to political
disintegration. Few of us imagined then, however, the
nightmare of Bosnia, the genocide to come in Rwanda or
the mass starvation and anarchy in Somalia. In response,
during our term on the Security Council in 1993 and 1994,
a record 75,000 United Nations peacekeepers were
deployed around the world, and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait
was robustly countered by coalition action authorized by
the Security Council. New Zealand was part of that
coalition and is part of the current efforts to ensure that
Iraq complies with subsequent Council decisions. Recent
events show that we still need to be vigilant. Iraq must
recognize that there are limits to what the international
community will tolerate.
New Zealanders also serve in the former Yugoslavia
where, while the implementation of the Dayton accords
lies primarily with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the United Nations continues to play an
important role. Similarly, our personnel serve in Angola
and the Middle East.
New Zealanders are staunch supporters of the United
Nations role in international peacekeeping, despite the fact
that the overall record through the first half of this decade
has been mixed. There were successes, such as Cambodia,
Mozambique and El Salvador, and there were the
disappointments and bitter frustrations of Bosnia, Somalia
and Rwanda. I hesitate to call those operations failures.
To me, that would be to overlook the positive things they
achieved in extremely difficult circumstances and the
contributions made by so many dedicated and able people.
Those operations will be failures only if we fail to learn
from them. I think we have learned.
We have learned that, first, the United Nations must
be given the resources required to do the job. Secondly,
the Organization must be careful about mixing
enforcement tasks with peacekeeping, unless our
peacekeepers are appropriately configured from the outset
for the higher level of threat.
Thirdly, the Security Council should be wary of
adopting resolutions to which the Organization cannot
give effect. This creates a very corrosive credibility
problem.
My Government also considers that the United
Nations must continue its efforts to develop a capacity to
respond more rapidly. We commend the proposal to
establish a rapidly deployable operational headquarters
team and, indeed, have offered to contribute a highly
experienced officer to it.
Demining remains an important focus for New
Zealand. Mines pose an unacceptable threat to
peacekeeping operations and are a longer-term
2

humanitarian and development challenge. The United
Nations must make every effort to ensure that the necessary
resources are available for demining activities.
We have more than doubled our annual instalment to
the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in
Mine Clearance. This is in addition to our continuing
contribution of expertise in demining in Cambodia,
Mozambique and Angola, as well as here at United Nations
Headquarters.
Finally, we do not think the United Nations can write
itself out of the script when operations involving a potential
enforcement dimension are contemplated. If it did so, it
could quickly become irrelevant. The threats to international
peace and security in the future are likely to be every bit as
difficult as those of the recent past. The United Nations will
need to be able to respond effectively, not simply as a
rubber stamp for great-Power actions.
The tragic events of recent days in the West Bank and
Gaza show that peace there remains elusive. New Zealand
calls upon all parties to desist from actions that might derail
the Middle East peace process. Painstaking efforts have
gone into that process, and it offers a real hope for a long-
term solution to the problems that have bedeviled that
region. It must be supported and not jeopardized.
Human rights are the foundation of freedom and
justice, and the achievement of universal respect for human
rights is an essential prerequisite for international peace and
security.
In New Zealand we work hard to ensure that our own
house is in order. We are committed to ensuring that the
rights elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Covenants and other core human rights
instruments are a living reality for all New Zealanders, and
we are prepared to speak out when we see human rights
being violated in other parts of the world. At its heart, our
international human rights policy is geared to finding
tangible ways of protecting and promoting human rights
and good government.
In the Asia-Pacific region we are pleased by the
progress the United Nations is making in nurturing human
rights frameworks. We are also encouraged by the new
levels of cooperation and interaction being achieved by the
human rights commissions of the region.
New Zealand also sees a need to support individual
countries, international and regional organizations and non-
governmental organizations in their work to improve
human rights and the quality of governance. To this end
the Minister for Foreign Affairs has today announced the
establishment of an international good-government
programme. This new programme will markedly expand
our ability to support good government and human rights
capacity-building activities. It will work in tandem with
the existing Commonwealth Good Government Fund.
Consistent with United Nations principles, New
Zealand has also participated actively in the Action Group
of Commonwealth Ministers for the promotion of
principles of good governance established at the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Harare
in 1991 and reaffirmed at its Auckland meeting in 1995.
For my own part, I have been privileged to represent New
Zealand at several of the Action Group’s meetings and
during its recent mission to Gambia.
Such programmes, with the interlinked goals of
social progress and economic development, do not come
cheaply. The money spent on United Nations relief and
development greatly surpasses that spent on peacekeeping,
and so it should.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 it
was recognized that substantial new and additional
funding would be required for sustainable development
and the implementation of Agenda 21, the programme of
action that will take us into the next century.
I am pleased to be able to say that by next year New
Zealand will have increased its official development
assistance by almost one third since Rio. There will be a
24 per cent increase in our funding for United Nations
development agencies this year.
1997 will see the five-year review of Agenda 21. At
the special session of the General Assembly next June,
one important task will be to assess the effectiveness of
the bodies and institutions that have been established to
advance the aims set out in Agenda 21. The issues are
many, and all are important. But we need to focus efforts
and produce real results.
In this regard, the Commission on Sustainable
Development should have a strengthened role. It should
be the forum in which States can work to streamline the
environment-and-sustainable- development agenda.
All these challenges facing this unique Organization,
and our regard for it, highlight of course the urgent need
3

for reform. In particular, the Security Council must be
made more representative of the Organization’s membership
as it is today, not as it was 50 years ago. Its decision-
making procedures must be brought up to date.
Finding a sustainable basis for the financing of the
Organization remains long overdue. New Zealand has
dedicated itself to reform of both the Secretariat and the
intergovernmental machinery, not least through our
vigorous commitment to the work of the Open-ended High-
level Working Group on the Strengthening of the United
Nations System. The report of that group provides a
blueprint for action during this session. We also support the
Efficiency Board, and have made available to it the services
of a New Zealand expert in public-service restructuring.
We believe that New Zealand’s record, not only as a
prompt contributor of assessments, but also as a country
that has demonstrated its commitment to financial reform,
places it in a good position to make an effective
contribution to the work of the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions, in which we are
seeking membership at this year’s session of the General
Assembly.
The drive for reform of the United Nations system to
make it an effective instrument of the international
community for the next 50 years means no part of it can
remain immune from scrutiny.
A good deal of attention has been focused on the
Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat.
We believe there is also scope for increasing the
effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. It is 50
years since the ICJ was established as the principal United
Nations judicial organ. To mark this important milestone in
the international rule of law, we should now finally
schedule a conference to adopt the statute for the
international criminal court. The creation of a permanent
court that will bring justice to victims of genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes and other serious international
crimes is surely a priority for us all.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to reaffirm
New Zealand’s commitment to this Organization, and to
multilateralism, as the means for building a better world.


 At
the outset, allow me to congratulate Ambassador Razali on
his election as President of this session of the General
Assembly and to wish him success in his noble task of
enhancing and strengthening the role of the United Nations.
I would also like to express our thanks and appreciation to
the former President of the General Assembly,
Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, for his efforts during his
presidency.
Half a century has elapsed since the birth of the
United Nations. Mankind wanted the United Nations to be
a bastion of justice, peace and human rights. It is meant to
be an authority where problems are solved and truth upheld,
where mankind can find an organization to defend its rights
when they are usurped and stand by its side when it is
threatened. In founding the United Nations, mankind
wanted to put an end to wars and usher in an era of peace,
of respect for the principle of State sovereignty and of
safeguarding peoples’ independence and their right to self-
determination and to the fulfilment of their aspirations.
With the telecommunications revolution and the fall of
political, economic, demographic, cultural and security
boundaries and barriers, States and their peoples need an
effective machinery for consultation and constructive
dialogue. The scientific and technological revolution has
increased our need for a greater synergy to face the
complex problems of our time and to bridge the gap
between the countries and nations of the world so as to
enable them to implement jointly subregional and
interregional projects that none can do alone.
The world population explosion and the concomitant
ecological degradation have made the environment
incapable of meeting rising demand. Competition for
natural resources and for the protection of vital interests
have risen sharply.
The increased number and growing sophistication of
lethal nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons of
mass destruction and the further development of their
intercontinental delivery systems heightens the threat of
annihilation for many countries and peoples, especially
when some of the countries which possess them lack even
minimal credibility.
Some societies are overwhelmed by the degree of
sophistication of the media, by its role and by the speed
with which political, economic, social, cultural and
scientific news flows through it. These societies may not
be ready to assimilate and absorb this flow of
information, so they react by isolating themselves, by
withdrawing into seclusion, or by hiding behind the veil
of tradition to protect their identity. This manifests itself
in the extremism and fundamentalism these societies use
to shield themselves from what is often perceived as a
threat to their identity.
These and other problems and challenges require
invigorating the United Nations machinery and renewing
confidence in its credibility, justice and efficiency, to free
its decisions from hegemony, eliminate its imbalances and
bring consistency to the standards it uses for the
implementation of its resolutions. We must do this if we
want the United Nations to remain a valuable global
authority and the alternative to destructive and violent
confrontation.
The world has witnessed a succession of local and
regional crises. Lebanon, which has suffered immensely,
plagued by the wars of others on its soil, follows with
concern the developments in different parts of the world.
The crisis over the sovereignty of the United Arab
Emirates on the Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu
Musa islands has not yet been settled. We hope referring
the case to the International Court of Justice will result in
a settlement reaffirming the United Arab Emirates claim
of sovereignty.
We also support arbitration of the case of the
Greater and Lesser Hanish islands between Yemen and
Eritrea; both parties have agreed to such arbitration.
Support for the unity, security and stability of
Liberia and Angola remains a primary objective to put an
end to the suffering of their peoples.
Lebanon likewise supports the Republic of Cyprus
in its efforts to build unity and sovereignty over all its
territory to put an end to the suffering of its people and
to the effects of the problem on the Government of
Cyprus with respect to the reunification of the island.
Lebanon has been following with grave concern the
recent deterioration of the situation in Iraq and the
suffering of the Iraqi people, who still lack food and other
basic needs. We do not believe that the recent events
16

represent the best way to address the Iraqi problem. We call
rather for the implementation of Security Council
resolution 986 (1995), and for a commitment to the unity
and sovereignty of Iraq, which would guarantee the
inviolability of the geopolitical map of the Middle East. If
a breach were to be opened in Iraq, the consequences
would definitely extend to other extremely sensitive
regions, which would further complicate the situation. Our
support of the sovereignty of the State of Kuwait over all
its territory prompts us to appeal for a permanent guarantee
of its sovereignty and security so that we can turn the page
on this bitter chapter of history once and for all.
The credibility enjoyed by international law is based
on its ability to find just and complete solutions to
important questions. This is the mission of the United
Nations and it therefore should be spared from having to
intervene in less important crises.
The credibility of the United Nations is still called into
question and this, in turn, undermines the role of the
Organization in the field of the non-proliferation of nuclear
weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) has been extended despite the reservations
expressed by some States, including Lebanon, on the
circumstances of its extension, including Israel’s refusal to
become a party to it. Israel is allowed to maintain a
formidable nuclear arsenal in one of the most sensitive and
volatile regions of the world without any safeguards or
controls; this poses a threat to all the peoples of the region.
The cessation of nuclear testing has been presented as an
alternative to the NPT. Despite the many promises made
prior to the extension of the NPT that Israel would
ultimately accede to it, this has yet to happen. Using double
standards in dealing with States can only create imbalances,
which in turn increases the number of exceptions to the
rule. The effectiveness of the Organization depends on the
equal treatment of all States, and the United Nations
remains the means to implement such policies.
In this context, Lebanon enthusiastically supports
enhancing the functioning and management of the
Organization in all areas, particularly with regard to the
scope of representation of the world’s peoples and the
countries in the Security Council. Recent changes and new
requirements demand more realistic geographic and
numerical representation in that body. We need to eliminate
the perception of hegemony that some have developed
about the role and decision-making power of the Council,
which they seem to believe has been seized by certain
major Powers. Lebanon believes that all proposals in this
regard must be carefully studied, particularly those that are
compatible with the approach I have outlined and that
enjoy broad support among States. I am thinking in
particular of the proposals of the non-aligned countries
and of Italy.
In recent years, and despite the many difficult
circumstances that have accompanied his years in office,
the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, has
made commendable efforts to further global peace,
security and stability. He has worked to solve problems
of social and economic development as well as those of
health in many parts of the world. Furthermore, he has
undertaken numerous reforms within the Organization.
His term has been distinguished by dynamism towards the
achievement of the Organization’s primary goals. Despite
the obstacles, his accomplishments are many and the
world bears witness to them. This continued course, as
seen in a renewed mandate, would be a basic guarantee
of the stability of United Nations policies. Lebanon
believes that the renewal of the Secretary-General’s
mandate would make it possible to complete many
projects and measures undertaken during his first term.
We therefore call upon States to support his bid for a
renewed, strengthened mandate.
We would have very much liked our participation in
this session, several years following the Madrid
conference, to be an occasion for gratitude for the
restoration of peace in the Middle East. We had hoped to
express our gratitude to the countries, peoples and
organizations which have tried to bring about this peace.
Five years have passed since the Madrid peace
conference, not counting the preparatory year. At the
time, we welcomed the initiative and believed in the
sponsorship and the subject matter of the conference. The
sponsors were two influential Powers, and the substance
was geared towards the achievement of a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace on the basis of the implementation
of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973),
and with regard to Lebanon, Security Council resolution
425 (1978), as well as the principle of land for peace. We
accepted the invitation and thought that the others who
accepted it had also agreed to its substance, and that the
only pending issues would be implementation, scheduling
and mechanisms.
But years have passed, and instead of moving
forward towards implementation, Israel has reneged on its
commitments and has tried to move away from what was
already done. As soon as the new Israeli Government was
in power, it adopted its manifesto: “The four No’s” — no
to the withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan; no to
17

the withdrawal from the occupied West Bank; no to the
settlement of the question of Jerusalem; and no to
recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people
in a State of their own.
To the contrary, the principle of land for peace has
been replaced by the principle of peace for security,
meaning refraining from waging a new war. Instead of
fulfilling commitments, formulas must be changed. Instead
of Madrid, there is the unknown. Instead of putting an end
to settlements, settlements are being expanded. A tunnel is
now being built under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in a clear act
of provocation to the people’s sensitivities.
We were asked to shake hands, to offer recognition
and to normalize relations without knowing what will
happen to our rights. We, the victims of aggression, are
asked to give security guarantees to the aggressor. Those
who do not possess weapons are asked to give assurances
to those who have one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the
world and who could not be convinced to accede to the
NPT when other countries have been forced to accept its
indefinite extension.
Since the new Israeli Government came to power, it
has backed away from the peace process, although
occasional misleading steps are made. The new Government
of Israel has resorted to a meaningless media campaign to
disguise its rejection of peace. We first heard the “Lebanon
first” slogan, but this too was void of any meaning except
as an attempt at isolation and to serve the purposes of the
media campaign. We then heard of the meeting between the
Palestinian and Israeli presidents. Once again, the occasion
was exploited, but meaning remained absent.
It has become clear that the objective of the Israeli
Government was to numb world public opinion and undo
what was agreed upon at the peace conference and the
ensuing negotiations. It is perfectly clear that Israel does
not have a policy for peace. It only has a policy of
changing formulas, a policy of threats and challenges, a
policy that Israel can use to further its expansionist and
settlement schemes.
Just as the world was on the verge of believing that
peace had become possible in the Middle East region, here
we are facing the unknown, facing the worst.
Some States in the region wanted to precipitate the
earlier optimism by moving to normalize relations. Now
they bear the burden of Israeli logic. Now the peoples of
the region have been thrust back into an era of inevitable
confrontation, violence, and resistance. No sooner had the
development plans of the Middle East region been put
into place and the world was showing interest in a future
of peace than mistrust and pessimism returned to prevail.
No sooner had the historic opportunity for the realization
of a great dream begun to crystallize than this opportunity
started to fade, leaving the peoples of the region with
only one alternative — to confront occupation, arbitrary
rule and obstinacy — since all international peace efforts
are failing. Today’s violence in Palestine and in southern
Lebanon is a direct result of the negative positions of the
Israeli Government. It presages dire consequences should
the peace process collapse.
Since the Madrid Conference, the United States has
tried, through two successive presidencies, to push the
peace process forward towards settlement. In order to do
so, the United States requested that the peace process be
taken out of the context of the United Nations and the
Security Council and be confined to the mechanisms
defined at Madrid. The United States sought to reassure
Israel by all military, material and economic means
available, even to the detriment of the Arabs, with the
idea of reviving the confidence of the Israelis. Then the
United States imposed concepts to increase guarantees
given to Israel to consolidate the peace process, which
were provisionally accepted, despite the fact that they
were unsound. Today, these efforts are threatened by the
party that benefited from them in the first place.
Today, the President of the United States will try to
bring together the parties concerned, pursuing his
responsibility to salvage the peace. Israel will continue
to manoeuvre, and will exploit the occasion provided by
United States presidential elections to undermine the steps
that were already in place. They will foil the efforts of
the United States, which we supported even though these
called for a continued and somewhat iniquitous tolerance
of Israel, despite the fact that Israel’s excesses had always
been covered by assurances for the sake of peace.
We must return to the foundations of peace as
announced at Madrid, resume the negotiations from where
they were interrupted and realize that the opportunity for
peace which had started to crystallize still presents a
historic opportunity. It must be recognized that what was
achieved at Madrid is the only foundation acceptable to
the people of the region. If peace is ever to be salvaged
in the Middle East, this is the only way to achieve it.
Lebanon has for many years suffered the aftermath
and consequences of the Middle East crisis and has paid
18

a heavy toll. Today, through domestic political measures,
security, development and economic achievements, Lebanon
is once again proving that it can confront difficulties and
face challenges. Lebanon is showing that its national unity,
the restoration of full sovereignty over its territory and
respect for its independence are inevitably more solidly
inherent in its existence than some might believe.
In the future, if peace is safeguarded, Lebanon will
prove that its history is larger than its geographical borders
and that its role by far exceeds its size. When Lebanon
regains its sovereignty over all of its territories now under
Israeli occupation, when the United Nations has restored its
credibility by implementing Security Council
resolution 425 (1978) on an equal footing with resolutions
relating to other parts of the world, when Lebanese citizens
are released from Israeli detention camps where they are
imprisoned with only minimal human rights, then and only
then will the bleeding stop and the wound heal.
The Middle East is tired of being an active volcano
threatening world peace. We have for too long been robbed
of peace to the detriment of the entire world. Opportunities
will not forever remain for those seeking peace. The peace
which we sought and for which we have long appealed is
threatened today. The failure of our endeavours to achieve
peace will close the door to any new attempt in the
foreseeable future. If reviving peace is a difficult job, the
ramifications of failure will be even more difficult for the
whole world.
The days when problems were confined to national
boundaries are well over, and so are the days when
boundaries were walls keeping crises contained. We hope
that peace is still possible. But it must be a just peace, not
a despoiling one; a real peace, not a theatrical one; an
equitable peace not an iniquitous one. It must be a peace
that calms rather than one that fans the anger of peoples.
May God forever guide the steps of those who seek
and work for peace, and inspire those who still oppose it.


Guided by feelings of great respect for Malaysia,
which plays an increasingly significant role in regional and
world affairs, I welcome the election to the presidency of
this session of the General Assembly the experienced and
well-known representative of that country, Mr. Razali
Ismail.
We, the newly independent States of the former Soviet
Union, are celebrating this year the fifth anniversary of our
independence and national statehood. My country is
successfully concluding a stage in its structural reforms and
has achieved macroeconomic stabilization. We have
managed to halt the decline in production and this year we
expect an increase in production of 3 to 4 per cent. The
annual rate of inflation is not expected to exceed 26 per
cent. We are finalizing the legal basis for a market
economy and for building new institutions. The goal now
is to join the World Trade Organization.
Regional cooperation is gaining in strength. In the
context of the Central Asian Union, the Economic
Cooperation Organization and the Commonwealth of
Independent States, we are creating conditions conducive
to the free movement of goods, capital, services and
labour. Entirely new areas are now linked by
transportation lines, and the groundwork is being laid for
long-term, comprehensive efforts to ensure the sustainable
development of the Central Asian region.
We, the newly independent States, are rapidly
becoming involved in the globalization process of the
world economy; we are deriving clear benefits from this
as well as significant damage and losses. Alongside the
liberalization of trade and the opening of State borders,
our fragile economies are being affected by transnational
organized crime, including drug trafficking. Drug dealers
are corrupting State institutions and are eroding the basis
of our young statehood.
Drug trafficking and arms trade are flourishing in
conflict areas. It is evident that powerful international
criminal forces, which are reaping profits from this, are
interested in the continuation and exacerbation of conflicts
in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Drugs have a destructive
effect on weak and powerful countries alike. Local
capacities and international assistance from donor
countries to fight drug trafficking pale in comparison to
the scale and geo-economic destructive effect of the drug
trade.
Five Central Asian countries were the second group,
following Eastern European nations, to sign a
memorandum of understanding with the United Nations
International Drug Control Programme. We continue to
fight this evil through regional cooperation. A subregional
programme for Central Asia provides an opportunity to
develop projects that provide legitimate alternatives to
people engaged in the cultivation and transport of illegal
crops. My country welcomes consideration of this issue
at a special session of the General Assembly to be held in
1998, and is convinced that the world community will
triple its support to programmes to stop the flow of drugs
to the countries of the North.
Sustainable development formed the basis of the
national human development strategy prepared on the
initiative of the President of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan,
Mr. Askar Akayev. During the past decade, from Vienna
to Istanbul, the international community, under the aegis
of the United Nations, has defined goals, tasks and
priorities for world social development. Kyrgyzstan
10

intends creatively and fully to implement the decisions
taken. We look forward with great interest to the
discussions on Agenda 21 that are due to take place at the
special session of the General Assembly to be convened in
1997.
Countries with economies in transition are going
through a difficult period of economic rehabilitation. The
problems of attracting direct foreign investment are
particularly acute. We are inspired by the experience of the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe that have
successfully managed the transition to a market economy.
Many of them have joined the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and established national
export and import banks and State insurance facilities for
private enterprises abroad. Today it is becoming
increasingly clear that timely and adequate assistance and
credits from the international community, combined with
enormous efforts by the countries themselves, are enabling
countries in transition to emerge rapidly from their crises
and thus join the group of development donors. The effect
of such a multi-layered approach to resolving common
development problems is clear, and there is no doubt that
several post-Soviet independent countries could shortly be
in the vanguard of this progress.
For a long time much has been said about the need for
cooperation between the United Nations and the Bretton
Woods institutions in strengthening peace and resolving
economic development problems. In recent years a huge
number of regional alliances have come into being in
response to contemporary challenges, and they are actively
cooperating with one another. Today, it would be difficult
to overestimate the importance of their role in resolving
inter-ethnic disputes and conflicts and developing trade,
transport, communications and sociocultural relationships in
these regions. The United Nations could systematize and
summarize the successful work of these unions and
alliances, which are like blood vessels in the way they link
the United Nations system with the World Bank, regional
banks and the International Monetary Fund, offering an
effective regional approach to dealing with the entire range
of complex issues on today’s world agenda.
Geo-economic regions such as the Fergana valley are
facing a great number of acute problems, including
unemployment, environmental deterioration, poverty,
inequality of women and all types of crime. They can, and
should, be a focal point for the attention and effort of all
countries concerned in Central Asia, for the United Nations
system, and for donor countries. Consistent and vigorous
efforts to resolve the urgent development problems of this
densely populated valley will also act as necessary
preventive actions to strengthen security, stability and
peace between the States of the region.
My country wholly supports the efforts of the United
Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, to
bring about a peaceful settlement in the inter-Tajik
conflict. We commend the contributions made by Russia
and Iran, and welcome the mediating role of
Turkmenistan, which has opened a goodwill office for
conducting the inter-Tajik talks.
Every conflict has a recognizable identity. It is time
for the United Nations to synthesize and develop the legal
basis, procedures, and methods of work for each party
involved, whether they are representatives of international
organizations, the parties to the conflict or various
working groups. The United Nations should have regular
consultations with the countries in the region and with the
regional alliances.
Because of the protracted nature of the crisis, which
has caused enormous suffering to innocent civilians, and
given the widespread consequences of the hostilities for
neighbouring countries, we believe that a solution to the
inter-Tajik conflict should be the basis for the long-term
sustainable development of that country and for the whole
of Central Asia.
The exodus of refugees from Tajikistan is
continuing. This is a painful subject for the people of
Tajikistan, and we feel for them in their suffering. The
ratification by Kyrgyzstan this year of the 1951
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of and its
1967 Protocol was not merely a demonstration of our
respect for human rights but reflected our willingness to
share the international community’s burden of
responsibility for providing assistance to people who are
forced to leave their homes to seek protection for
themselves and their children. The conference on the
problem of refugees and displaced persons in the
Commonwealth of Independent States, which was
organized by the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva in May 1996,
demonstrated the international community’s full support
for refugees from Tajikistan.
The humanitarian situation remains critical,
particularly in mountainous areas, which are very hard to
reach, and especially now, with winter approaching. We
are convinced that not only the United Nations and its

specialized agencies but the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund, the European Union and the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development will work
together successfully to promote a peaceful settlement of
the conflict and alleviate the hardship and pain of the long-
suffering Tajik people.
With regard to recent events in Afghanistan, we
believe that a comprehensive political settlement must be
found to the Afghan conflict, that territorial integrity cannot
be ensured and that non-interference in the internal affairs
of this sovereign country must be respected. We call on the
Security Council to work for national reconciliation among
the warring factions and to seek an end to the long,
debilitating war that has destabilized the Asian continent as
a whole.
Half a century of experience of world political
development under the aegis of the United Nations leads us
to conclude that there should be more non-conflict,
sustainably developing nuclear-weapon-free zones. This
would guarantee peace and security. The long-awaited hour
has come: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has
been signed by an overwhelming majority of States
Members of the United Nations. When I signed the Treaty
on behalf of my people, as the representative of a country
that until recently had been squeezed from both sides by
two of the world’s largest nuclear-weapon-testing areas, I
experienced a special feeling of satisfaction and hope for
the future of my country and for the whole world.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
are major milestones on the road to a future nuclear-
weapon-free world. We are resolved to make Central Asia
a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Support and appropriate
guarantees from the nuclear States would constitute an
important prerequisite for that achievement.
The Kyrgyz Republic is in favour of reforming the
United Nations. The permanent membership of the Security
Council should be enlarged to include Germany, Japan and
representatives of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Equitable geographical representation would also mean an
increase the number of non-permanent members of the
Council. The nature of the interaction between the Security
Council and the General Assembly should also change, and
become more transparent.
Since becoming Members of the United Nations less
than five years ago, the newly independent States have
become full-fledged members of the United Nations family.
We, like others, were pleased about the establishment of
peace in Haiti and Bosnia, and paid tribute to the many
people who lost their lives, in whatever part of the world.
With regard to regional alliances, we are developing our
relations equally with West and East, South and North.
Three countries of our group — Kyrgyzstan, Kazakstan
and Uzbekistan — are creating a Central Asian
peacekeeping battalion to act as a future reserve force of
Blue Helmets. On a basis of mutual respect, Russia,
Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan this year concluded
a treaty on confidence-building measures in the military
sphere on the border with the People’s Republic of China.
We are determined to learn every step of the way. We,
together with the other Member States, are on the road to
the twenty-first century. By combining our efforts we
shall be worthy to meet its new challenges.


On behalf of my country and on
my own behalf, I extend to you, Sir, our warmest
congratulations on your unanimous election as President of
the fifty-first session of the Assembly. Your election is
indeed a deserving tribute to you personally and to your
great country, Malaysia, which, over the years, has been
unflagging in its commitment to the principles and ideals of
this Organization — the attainment of international peace
and justice. I am confident that your rich diplomatic
experience, coupled with your fine human qualities, will
enable you to guide the deliberations of this session of the
Assembly to a successful conclusion. Permit me, Sir, to
also take this opportunity to extend my delegation’s
gratitude to your predecessor for having so ably steered the
Assembly’s fiftieth session up to this momentous occasion.
I should like at this point to convey our appreciation
and gratitude to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, for the dedicated and able manner in which
he has guided the work of the Organization. In this regard,
we reaffirm our support for the Organization of African
Unity’s (OAU) declaration on the Secretary-General’s re-
election. Permit me, Mr. Secretary-General, to convey,
through you, to the entire staff of the United Nations our
admiration for their loyalty and commitment to the
Organization.
I bring also the greetings and good will of the
people of Sierra Leone. They have requested me to
convey our sincere gratitude to the international
community for its support in restoring democracy to our
country in March this year. I stand here today as a
testimony to the right of that people, who in March of
this year elected their Government and chose their
destiny. As their leader, I am determined to live up to
their high aspirations and expectations. Allow me on this
occasion also to pay tribute to our gallant citizens, many
of whom lost their lives in the process of restoring
democracy and constitutional rule to our country.
Despite this great achievement, my country is still
haunted and tormented by the spectre of ongoing civil
conflict in our country. The rebel war inflicted severe
pain and suffering on my people, who had never before
imagined that such a terrible thing could happen to us.
Thousands of innocent civilians — men, women and
children — lost their lives; others were traumatized, as
well as physically or psychologically crippled for life; still
others continue to languish as refugees or displaced
persons in inhospitable camps.
The Revolutionary United Front (RUF) has no
political agenda and no respect for the democratic
process. It consistently ignored an invitation to participate
in the recent internationally supervised elections in spite
of numerous appeals and offers of assistance by the
United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations.
Instead, it set out to disrupt those elections by unleashing
violence against the electorates, killing many and
maiming many more. Thanks to our determination to
restore democracy in our country, this RUF attempt
failed, as did its effort to collude with the military junta
and share power in defiance of the democratic process.
The RUF draws its support from abducted villagers
and rural schoolchildren, including girls aged seven and
older, and maintains their “loyalty” with the use of drugs
and terror.
This notwithstanding, my Government entered into
peace negotiations in the spirit of reconciliation, and I am
pleased to report that the talks have advanced
considerably. In March 1996, just after my assumption of
office, a ceasefire was agreed upon. In spite of some
incidents, it is still generally holding.
On behalf of the people and Government of the
Republic of Sierra Leone, I should like to take this
opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the Secretary-
4

General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the continuing
support he has afforded us to in promoting the cause of
democratization and the restoration of peace in my country
and, in particular, for his assignment of a Special Envoy,
whose constructive and enduring role has helped to advance
the peace process. I should also like to express gratitude to
President Henri Konan-Bédié and the Government and
people of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire for the selfless and
painstaking efforts they have deployed in hosting and
mediating the talks between the Government of Sierra
Leone and the RUF.
After protracted and painstaking negotiations that
involved extensive Government concessions, including a
general amnesty for all RUF members; an undertaking to
help set up a trust fund for the RUF to assist it in
transforming itself into a political party; the offer of jobs to
the RUF leader and his followers, including their absorption
into the army, the police and other government institutions,
the RUF leader finally indicated his readiness to sign a
peace agreement drafted by the host Government, Côte
d’Ivoire.
However, the RUF leader now seems to be unwilling
to honour his commitment to sign the agreement,
manufacturing various excuses to justify his prevarication.
We are concerned that continued intransigence and
prevarication by the RUF could precipitate a full-scale
resumption of hostilities, given the increasing level of
distrust between the two sides. It is therefore time for the
international community to act to forestall this potential
catastrophe by demanding that the RUF sign the peace
agreement without further delay. Failing this, the imposition
of sanctions against it should be considered, including the
denial of access to the facilities and territories of third
countries, and the prospect of its arraignment before a war
crimes tribunal for the serious crimes being perpetrated
against innocent civilians.
While we persevere in our efforts to bring this conflict
to a peaceful end, I owe it to our people to emphasize the
need for the continued support of the international
community to help us in the task of rehabilitation and
reconstruction. We are encouraged by the outcome of the
recent round-table conference on Sierra Leone held in
Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP). We take this
opportunity to express our sincere thanks to those countries
that have pledged generously to assist in our post-conflict
rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. We, for our part,
are determined to rebuild our country with all the energy
and resources we can muster from within our borders. We
have already embarked on this process, and we are
determined to see it through, no matter what sacrifice is
necessary.
Two decades ago, the prevailing perception in this
body was that the end of the cold war would dramatically
reduce the incidence of regional conflicts and thus
enhance international peace and security. Today, however,
those conflicts appear to have been replaced by civil wars
and ethnic strife, which now pose the greatest challenge
to the peacekeeping and peacemaking capacities of the
United Nations.
We have witnessed mass horrors in Rwanda and
Burundi, and intense internal strife in Somalia, Liberia
and, to a lesser extent, in my own country. Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Chechnya and the occupied Palestinian
territories all have continued to engage the attention of
the international community. We call upon the leaders and
actors in those conflicts to renounce violence and to
embark on sincere and serious negotiations with a view to
finding peaceful solutions. Agreements reached should be
honoured and respected. The innocent, who are all too
often the victims of such conflicts, cry out for peaceful
resolution.
As regards the question of the peaceful resolution of
conflicts, of particular concern to my country is the
situation in Liberia. Consensus has once again emerged
from the political dialogue between the various factions,
giving rise to renewed hopes of a durable peace for that
devastated country and its people. Full implementation of
the conditions embodied in the new implementation plan
of the Abuja Agreement, concluded at the recent
Economic Community of West African States Committee
of Nine summit held in Abuja, Federal Republic of
Nigeria, would provide real hope for Liberia. We remain
confident that this time around, those responsible for the
Liberians’ pain and suffering will find the courage and
patriotism to spare their fellow citizens further violence
and bloodshed. Enough is enough. The defenceless people
of Liberia, especially innocent children, men and women,
have a right to freedom from violence; they have a right
to life.
The situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa is
also cause for serious concern. As we watch the cautious
return of Rwandan refugees, we hope and pray that the
wounds inflicted by ethnic strife will heal on the platform
of national reconciliation. The ongoing crisis in Burundi
also poses a challenge to the international community. In
5

the light of my own country’s recent history, we cannot
condone the seizure of power by the military from a
constitutionally elected Government. We call on all
concerned not to relent in their search for a long-term
solution to the horrendous crisis. Looking at the broader
picture of tackling such difficulties, we hope that others
will support the efforts of the Organization of African
Unity to strengthen its Mechanism for the prevention and
resolution of conflicts.
Closely linked to the issue of peace is that of the
protection of human rights. We reaffirm our faith in justice
and in the dignity and worth of the human person. That is
why Sierra Leone fully supports the work of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
We commend the work of the Preparatory Committee for
its current efforts aimed at preparing the text of a statute
for an international criminal court, which will have an
important role in the area of massive human rights
violations, which, notwithstanding the sad lessons of
history, continue today in several parts of the world.
While political, regional and ethnic conflicts, civil
wars and the menace of armaments — both nuclear and
conventional — are a major concern, Sierra Leone believes
that the greatest threat to international peace and security
today lies in poverty and in economic and social
deprivation. The nature and complexity of the economic
and social problems that beset Africa are all too familiar to
us. The majority of African countries, including Sierra
Leone, continue to face a myriad of economic and
structural challenges. Africa has the largest number of least
developed countries and the lowest average per capita
income in the developing world. In fact, Africa’s overall
living standards and socio-economic conditions have
deteriorated considerably since the beginning of this decade.
Most African countries have encountered numerous
difficulties over the years in their effort to mobilize and
deploy financial and human resources for economic
development. The levels of investment have not been
encouraging; nor have the levels of agricultural and mineral
outputs, due in large part to drought, economic
disincentives, political manipulation and an unfavourable
international environment. In many cases, aided and abetted
by ruthless arms merchants, many of us continue to engage
in senseless fratricidal conflicts and the wanton destruction
of the development infrastructure.
We are also obliged to note that budgetary constraints
faced by various developed countries, clarification of
foreign aid objectives, revised conditions governing the
granting of assistance, and the heightened competition
among various regions for aid packages constitute a
serious challenge for developing countries such as mine.
The ubiquitous debt burden and the debt- servicing levels
in no way help the situation, as they continue to be a
major stumbling block on the path of African economic
recovery and sustainable growth. Overseas development
assistance and resource flows have dwindled to a level
that gives us cause for concern. The downward trend in
export commodity prices and the agricultural policies of
some of the industrialized nations have had a negative
impact on Africa’s trade in these commodities, the main
source of income for socio-economic development. In this
connection, the debt burden that continues to hang over us
has conspired to frustrate our efforts at economic recovery
and development.
Sierra Leone strongly believes that the urgent
implementation of the United Nations New Agenda for
the Development of Africa in the 1990s, adopted by the
Assembly on 18 December 1991, is the best hope yet for
setting Africa on the road to positive sustainable
economic development. We appreciate the fact that the
basic tenets of the New Agenda are grounded on the
principles of shared responsibility and global partnership
between Africa and the rest of the international
community.
Virtually all Member States of the first and second
worlds represented in the Assembly have experienced, at
one time or another, the same or similar problems in their
struggle for national unity and economic prosperity; we
read about them in the cold pages of history.
Unfortunately for us Africans, our economic and other
problems — teething problems, if I may say so — are
transmitted live, instantly, by satellite to television sets
across the globe.
Looking at current economic, social and political
conditions on our continent, including the atrocities meted
out to our own kith and kin, one is inclined to lose hope
in the ability of Africa to achieve sustainable
development.
But the thrust of my message today is simple: I
appeal to the international community not to abandon
Africa. Even though we may be on our knees in anguish,
I firmly believe that there is hope for Africa, that Africa
and its people have the ability and capacity to overcome
natural and self-inflicted constraints and to achieve
political stability as well as reasonable economic
prosperity. We have recently witnessed many changes on
the continent that lend credence to Africa’s genuine
6

commitment to the New Agenda for Africa and to other
plans for economic and political stability. Hence, there is
still hope for Africa. My presence here is symbolic of that
hope. In spite of a rebel war that still hangs over my
country, and in spite of attempts to frustrate the will of the
people to choose their destiny freely and in a democratic
manner, Sierra Leoneans opted for democracy. We are
determined to achieve genuine peace as well as the
objectives we have set for ourselves, which are
commensurate with the enormous sacrifices our people have
made.
I am confident, therefore, that the political dialogue to
ensure the advent of good governance, which has begun in
earnest in most countries throughout the continent, will
continue. Given the proper chance to grow, our new and
emerging democracies will gradually bear fruit, and our
distressed nations will once again be guided by lofty
democratic ideals in an environment of peace, security and
stability. African democracy will eventually be the order of
the day. For these gains to be fully realized, it is therefore
imperative that the international community continue to
play a catalytic role in Africa’s development.
In virtually every policy statement, every address and
every current discussion about the United Nations there is
some reference to reform in our Organization. We are
encouraged by the work of various intergovernmental
bodies to develop constructive ideas for reform. However,
reform should not be seen only in terms of the so-called
bloated bureaucracy of the Secretariat, to be used as a
scapegoat for not meeting our obligations towards the
Organization.
In the view of the Government of Sierra Leone, we
need a systemic reform; a reform of the political decision-
making process in the Organization; a reform of some of
the archaic methods and practices in the institutions that
compose the United Nations system. Let us begin by
transforming, indeed transferring, the principles and
concepts of democratic governance, empowerment, power-
sharing, decentralization and pluralism that we espouse for
nation States to the international community at large. In this
regard, Africa should be entitled to play its role in the
Security Council, the primary decision-making organ of this
Organization, particularly in relation to international peace
and stability.
In pursuit of this objective, we would like to recall
and support the position expressed by the Non-Aligned
Movement, that is, if there is no agreement on other
categories of membership, expansion should take place, for
the time being, only in the non-permanent category. I
should like to note in this regard that the proposal of
Italy, among others, deserves careful consideration, as it
aims at increasing the participation of all Member States
in the Council, in particular medium-sized and small
countries, and it would improve its representative and
democratic character.
For our part, we affirm our faith in the United
Nations, which, in spite of its defects, remains the
greatest hope for the maintenance of international peace
and security, and for the promotion of the economic and
social advancement of all peoples in our interdependent
world.
Who needs the United Nations? First, it is an
important institution. Furthermore, it is an effective
international mechanism when used properly. Some of us
represented in the Assembly may need it more than
others, but we all do, in one way or another.
Let us therefore rededicate ourselves to its principles
and objectives, and, in the words of the Charter, make it
at least
“a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in
the attainment of these common ends”.