I would like at the outset, Sir, to express the warm
congratulations of my delegation and of my country on
your election to the presidency of the General Assembly.
You are one of sisterly Namibia's freedom fighters, and one
of Africa's faithful sons. Your unanimous election to your
important post and your country's simultaneous membership
of the Security Council are strong evidence of the respect
and appreciation that Namibia enjoys in the eyes of the
entire international community. In the Security Council,
Namibia's notable positions on important international
issues also irrefutably demonstrate Namibia's unremitting
struggle for freedom, right, sovereignty and justice — a
struggle now waged by means different from those that
Namibia used during its independence struggle.
I also commend your predecessor, His Excellency
Mr. Didier Opertti, for his successful guidance of the
previous session.
I wish also to welcome the Republic of Kiribati, the
Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga as new
Members of the United Nations.
The Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi
Annan, deserves our deepest appreciation for his
continued efforts to make this Organization freer and less
submissive to the domination and control of the super-
Powers of this critical historical era.
Over the past several decades, the United Nations
has made considerable achievements, the most notable of
which has perhaps been its role in the elimination of
direct colonialism and in the attainment of independence
by many countries which today occupy their proper place
as States Members of this Organization.
The world has witnessed fundamental changes,
which imperatively call for serious reform of the United
Nations and its basic structures, so that the Organization
can truly perform its role as an umbrella, a haven and a
reference-point for all. Colonialist soldiers have left the
harbours and the airports, but with the collapse of
international equilibrium, colonialists are reappearing in
new guises, with new means and with both new and old
approaches. Colonialism is coming back in the guise of
the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, other
financial institutions, economic cartels, and, when
necessary, military alliances. It is coming back in the
guise of international conventions imposed through so-
called international legitimacy, which is really nothing
more than an expression of higher policies dictated
through temptation or coercion. Colonialism is coming
back in the guise of globalization, which is but a means
of ensuring and consolidating dependence in terms of the
economy, politics, culture and even social values.
Colonialism is also returning through direct armed
invasion, when necessary, as we have recently witnessed.
It is also returning through bilateral sanctions policies
enforced through so-called international legitimacy and
through selective disarmament or rearmament.
Colonialism is returning through the elimination — not
the mere violation — of State sovereignty. The slogan
that is now much in vogue, “humanitarian intervention”,
will help erode the little that remains of State sovereignty.
That pretext has been completely exposed. If the new
Colonialists understood the real meaning of humanity,
they would not be producing and stockpiling all kinds of
weapons of mass destruction or committing aggression
against others. Nor would they be imposing sanctions on
countries, as they continue to do, with the aim of
16

humiliating, starving and killing their peoples. We declare
our absolute rejection of intervention under any slogan.
This is the world following the collapse of
international equilibrium: the strong and the rich are
becoming stronger and richer, and the weak and the poor
are becoming weaker, poorer and more deprived.
In the face of these fundamental changes, it has
become necessary, indeed urgently imperative, that the
United Nations should undergo a transformation that would
enable it to respond to its new tasks as an umbrella, a
haven and a reference-point for all. This change will not
happen by itself, nor will the powerful initiate it. The
weaker nations can only resort to uniting their limitless
efforts, strengths and potentials to bring about and impose
such change. My country believes that this desired change
must achieve the following:
First, the authority for decision-making in the United
Nations must rest with the General Assembly, where
Member States enjoy equal sovereignty.
Secondly, the Security Council must become an
executive instrument or authority for the General Assembly.
Thirdly, there must be a radical revision of Security
Council membership that will be equitable to all under-
represented regions, particularly in the southern hemisphere:
Africa, Asia and South America.
Fourthly, the Security Council's rules of procedures
must be issued by the General Assembly, which represents
the international community. Otherwise, it will be
meaningless to say that the Security Council works on
behalf of the international community. Quite simply put, the
majority of the members of the international community did
not participate in the formulation of the Charter. A very
small number of the United Nations Members formulated
it over half a century ago.
Fifthly, all privileges resulting from the victories and
defeats of World War II must be abolished, particularly the
privilege of veto, and any other privileges that prevent this
most important international Organization from becoming
truly democratic.
Despite the crises, conflicts and wars that ravage the
African continent, this year has witnessed solutions for
some of them, prospects for several others and initiatives
for the solution of the remaining conflicts. As we express
our satisfaction with this trend, we wish to recall, as we
have always done, that African wars and conflicts are the
product of the division of Africa by the colonial Powers,
which must assume full responsibility for all the damages
inflicted upon the continent, including an apology and full
compensation to its peoples. The solutions reached for
many African conflicts were a result of the enormous
efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU),
subregional organizations, several African States and
some African leaders who truly care about Africa's
security, stability and development.
Libya has effectively supported and participated in
these initiatives, and will continue to do so, in close
cooperation with the OAU, all other concerned countries
and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. As a
contribution to the efforts made to tackle the situation in
the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes
region, Libya has succeeded in convening a number of
meetings, for heads of State of the region, in Sirte, Libya,
where they reached the Sirte Agreement, later completed
and signed in Lusaka, which is aimed at putting an end to
the conflict in the area.
In Somalia, Libya continues its efforts, in
coordination with all concerned countries and groups in
conflict, for national reconciliation in that forgotten
country. We hope that these efforts will result in the
reunification and stability of Somalia. Libya has also
contributed to bringing peace to Sierra Leone and stability
to Guinea-Bissau, as well as contributing to the efforts
undertaken by the OAU to put an end to the dispute
between brothers in Ethiopia and Eritrea, in the Horn of
Africa. A Libyan envoy was sent there to help end the
war and bring peace to those two brotherly countries.
Africa's plights are not confined to wars and
conflicts, but also include several economic and social
problems: 44 per cent of Africans live in abject poverty;
AIDS threatens the entire African population; malaria and
other epidemic diseases still threaten the lives of millions
in Africa. In respect of the latter, my country calls for the
speedy adoption and implementation of an international
plan to eradicate these diseases in Africa before it
becomes impossible to contain and eliminate them.
Attempts by African states to confront and solve these
problems are hampered by the heavy debts of the
continent, which reached $350 billion in 1998, equalling
300 per cent of the value of African exports and services.
The time has come to cancel African debts and to deal
with this question on the basis of new and equitable
principles.
17

In order to confront these challenges and to usher a
strong and united Africa into the new century, our brother
Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi extended an invitation to his
brothers, the leaders of Africa, to convene an extraordinary
summit in Sirte, Libya, from 8 to 9 September 1999. Their
positive response had been unprecedented since the
establishment of the OAU. They all participated in the
summit, with the exception of Somalia, which has no
central government. Thirty-nine heads of State and four
Prime Ministers were at the forefront of the participants.
Some of the founding fathers of the Organization of
African Unity were also at the summit, as well as former
OAU Secretaries-General. The summit, which is a historic
event in its own right, concluded with the adoption of the
Sirte Declaration establishing an African Union and its
political, economic and legislative institutions. Africa is
now determined, more than ever before, to surmount all the
negative aspects of its present realities and to move forward
towards its future, full of hopes and aspirations, counting
basically on its own resources, capabilities and the
endeavours of its sons.
The Palestinian issue has not been settled yet, simply
because the essence of the problem is being ignored:
Palestine is still occupied. Its people are still scattered all
over the globe as refugees, replaced by immigrants from all
over the world. Unless an end is put to all this, and unless
the Palestinian people are given their right to return to their
homeland, neither peace nor security will be achieved in the
Arab East region. The occupation of the Syrian Golan
Heights must also be totally ended, as well as the
occupation of southern Lebanon, in implementation of
Security Council resolution 425 (1978).
We demand the immediate lifting of sanctions imposed
on Iraq, and we emphasize the importance of preserving its
unity and territorial integrity, respect for its sovereignty,
non-intervention in its internal affairs and ending the
ongoing military aggression against it.
In order for the world to live in peace and security, it
must be freed from the nuclear horror that threatens all
peoples. Elimination of nuclear arsenals and all other
weapons of mass destruction must have priority, and all
efforts to achieve disarmament, at both regional and
international levels, must be concentrated on realizing this
goal. Unless those who currently possess such weapons get
rid of them, there will always be those who strive to
possess them. Efforts aimed at the non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons will be futile unless the nuclear Powers
take practical steps that would demonstrate their serious
commitment to the undertakings they have made. These two
tracks must move together or stop together. We have no
other choice.
The Arab region is subject to the threat of nuclear
weapons possessed by Tel Aviv. These weapons
constitute a permanent threat to the people of the region
and to neighbouring areas, and unless these weapons are
eliminated, all efforts to prevent their proliferation in the
region will be unsuccessful.
Libya is the southern Mediterranean country with the
longest coast. Therefore, we have a vital interest in
making the Mediterranean a Sea of peace and cooperation
for the benefit of all peoples of this basin. This goal can
be achieved only if foreign military bases and fleets are
removed from the area, as they are a source of constant
danger to all Mediterranean peoples.
Several countries, including my own, are still trying
to overcome the thorny problem of landmines that were
planted in by the belligerent Powers during the World
Wars. These landmines have caused damage, losses and
tragedies of untold magnitude, both human and material.
Vast areas of Libya are covered by millions of land mines
deployed by the Allies and the Axis Powers during the
Second World War. We hold those Powers responsible
for what they have inflicted upon our people as a result
of these landmines, and we reiterate our demand that the
States responsible implement the resolutions of the
General Assembly adopted in this regard, through the
payment of compensation to the affected countries and
peoples and the removal of these landmines.
The revolution of 1969 allowed Libya to achieve its
true and complete independence. By driving the foreign
military forces and bases from its soil, my country
liberated its policies and decision-making capabilities. For
these reasons, Libya has since then been the target of
ongoing hostile media campaigns aimed at distorting our
policies and tarnishing our international image. Our
support for and solidarity with liberation movements have
been portrayed as support for terrorism. Our standing by
the side of the oppressed and the downtrodden and our
assistance to help them liberate their countries and their
resources and defend their own interests have been
considered interference in the internal affairs of others.
There have also been clandestine campaigns that
have sought to assassinate political leaders, in particular
the leader of our revolution, Colonel Muammar
Al-Qadhafi, who has been targeted several times. Both air
force and naval campaigns have targeted Libya’s
18

territorial waters and the main cities of Tripoli and
Benghazi. As a result, dozens of martyrs were killed and
many times as many were wounded — in addition to
extensive loss of and damage to property. The main
objective of these raids was once again to murder our
brother Muammar Al-Qadhafi, whose home, office and tent
were destroyed during these raids.
Economic pressure has been used against Libya.
Unilateral boycotts and embargoes were followed by
bilateral and collective embargoes, then by the
internationalization of these embargoes after the Security
Council had become hostage to the will of the powerful
since the collapse of the international balance of power.
This was particularly the case during the first years of the
“era of frenzy”, as Mr. Kofi Annan called it in a report to
the General Assembly.
Why and how was the international “boycott” — as
opposed to international “sanctions” — imposed? I call it
a boycott and not sanctions because a sanction is a form of
punishment for a definitively proven action, a punishment
decreed after a final sentence has been pronounced by a
competent court that has the jurisdiction to condemn the
action in question. But no proof or evidence was presented
to the Security Council that Libya, or even the two Libyan
suspects, had actually committed any action that led to the
crash of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of
Lockerbie. Nevertheless, the sanctions resolutions were
issued in the name of so-called international legitimacy, a
legitimacy that is both wrong and wronged. This is wrong
because resolutions are adopted in the name of the Security
Council; the Security Council is wronged because it is
forced to issue resolutions under political and economic
pressures and threats. The relevant resolutions were adopted
on the basis of suspicions regarding just two Libyan
citizens — yet the sanctions targeted the entire population
of Libya. This was a form of collective punishment against
an entire people on the basis of a mere suspicion that had
not been fully investigated. This punishment was imposed
without a trial and obviously without any conviction in a
court of law. So much indeed for legitimacy. In fact, how
legitimate could this be during the years of frenzy?
The conclusions — or cinematic fantasies — regarding
the suspicions were refuted at the time. Malta conducted an
official investigation, the findings of which demonstrated
that not one unaccompanied suitcase was loaded onto the
flight from Malta to Frankfurt. For their part, the Frankfurt
authorities investigated the matter and reached the
conclusion that not one unaccompanied suitcase had arrived
at their airport from Malta, nor had left it for London.
What then, is the origin or basis of this suspicion?
I would like to briefly remind the Assembly that
from the first moment that the accusation was broadcast
by the media, and before the matter was even presented
to the Security Council, Libya had done the following.
First, we had requested the other party to provide the
judiciary authorities in Libya with its findings so that
these authorities could commence their investigations
accordingly. Alternatively, we proposed that that party
send investigators to Libya to participate in the
investigation. We proposed sending Libyan judges to
review the case file. We also proposed that an
investigation be conducted by a neutral party or parties,
or by the United Nations. All these requests were refused.
Secondly, we requested the application of article 14
of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation or the
assignment of this matter to the International Court of
Justice. All these requests and proposals were also
refused.
Then, on 27 February 1998, the International Court
of Justice issued two rulings in favour of Libya,
confirming its jurisdiction over the case under the
Montreal Convention. The Non-Aligned Movement — at
a meeting of its Foreign Ministers in Cartagena,
Colombia, from 18 to 20 May 1998 — made a
recommendation to the upcoming Non-Aligned Movement
Summit in Durban, South Africa, that the sanctions
imposed on Libya be lifted if the other party to the
dispute did not agree to suspend the sanctions at the next
review of the Security Council, which had been set for
July 1998. At the Organization of African Unity summit
in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, held on 10 June 1998,
that organization declared that its members would no
longer comply with the Security Council sanctions if the
other party continued to reject any of the options
proposed by international organizations to resolve the
conflict. Faced with all these developments, the other
party had only two options left: either to accept a trial in
a third country, or for the international community to
immediately lift the sanctions without having recourse to
the Security Council. Such a situation would have
threatened the authority of the Security Council — or,
more accurately, it would have threatened the authority of
those who influence the Security Council — this latter
being in the Council’s view — a much more serious
matter.
19

A further legal complication was the possibility that
the General Assembly would be presented with a
constitutional dilemma, especially after the issuance of the
two rulings of the International Court of Justice — the
highest judicial institution of the United Nations. It was the
Security Council versus the International Court of Justice.
We could present the case to the General Assembly at any
time. The other party therefore had no option, and
reluctantly, accepted, hoping to gain time. But then it
returned to its main objective vis-à-vis Libya. It declared its
acceptance of a trial in a third country and presented, as
always, a badly written draft resolution to the Security
Council, along with other draft resolutions imposed on the
Council by means that are well known to all, especially to
the Council’s members.
Once again, most Security Council members supported
Libya, and once again the international community
reiterated its strong support for Libya in letters that
reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of the
international community. These letters are all official
documents of the Security Council.
But in all fairness, and to state the truth, from which
we have never deviated, I will say that the Government of
the United Kingdom has reacted seriously to the Libyan
proposal, expressing its willingness to refer the whole
question to none other than a Scottish court sitting in the
Netherlands. We state the truth in our own interest and in
the interest of others.
The rest is well known to all delegations. On 5 April
1999, the two suspects arrived of their own free will in the
Netherlands, accompanied by Mr. Hans Corell, the
Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs.
But has the other party fulfilled its obligations? Has it
shown respect for the resolutions of the Security Council?
The answer is no. In fact, the other party prevented the
adoption of a resolution by the Security Council to suspend
the sanctions and agreed only to a press release. Once
again, under pressure from the Non-Aligned Movement
members of the Security Council and from the other
Council members, and after several letters were submitted
by the States members of the Non-Aligned Movement, the
Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the
Islamic Conference and the Arab League to the Security
Council and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
the other party accepted, unwillingly, the text of a
presidential statement for the suspension of the embargo.
Three months after the sanctions were suspended, on
30 June 1999, the Secretary-General submitted a report to
the Security Council in document S/1999/726 pursuant to
paragraph 16 of resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of
resolution 1192 (1998), which requested him to report to
the Security Council within 90 days on compliance by the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the remaining provisions of
resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992). On 9 July 1999,
the Security Council considered the Secretary-General's
report, but was unable to adopt a resolution that would
have lifted the sanctions imposed on Libya, because of
the intransigence of one State, the United States, which is
a party to the dispute. That State even threatened to use
the veto. This, in fact, can only be seen as reneging on
previous commitments made by the Security Council in
paragraph 16 of its resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph
8 of its resolution 1192 (1998). Moreover, it ignores the
Secretary-General's report, whose contents lead to only
one conclusion: that Libya has fulfilled all its obligations
under Security Council resolutions.
What justification, if any, does the United States
have for using the veto to prevent the Security Council
from adopting a resolution to lift the unjust sanctions on
Libya? First, the United States has reiterated the
accusation it has made before and since the fabrication of
the Lockerbie case: that Libya supports terrorism. The
United States has been repeating that allegation ever since
we evicted it from Libya's military bases and harbours,
ended its monopoly on our oil, and liberated our country
from colonialism. That is why the United States still
accuses us of terrorism. The Secretary-General's report
categorically refutes this claim. Members may refer to
paragraphs 29 to 34 of the report and to other pages in
order to ascertain the baseless nature of this accusation.
Moreover, one can also cite reports issued by the
American State Department and statements made by
present and former officials of American Administrations
that all point to the fact that such claims can no longer be
made.
Libya is a victim of American terrorism, not vice
versa. It is the United States of America that committed
all the acts of aggression that we have previously referred
to. It is the United States that sheltered, financed, trained
and armed terrorists and transported them to Libya to
commit acts of terrorism in 1984 and afterwards. Those
who continue to shelter terrorists wanted by other
countries are not in a position to refer to others by
descriptions that apply only to themselves. Libya has
stood by liberation movements, particularly in Africa.
This is a legitimate cause, not support for terrorism.
20

The second justification is that Libya has to cooperate
with the Scottish court in the Netherlands. This is
meaningless, since Libya has undertaken to cooperate with
the court, as the Secretary-General's report has shown.
Furthermore, this matter has been discussed by the judiciary
authorities of the three countries in the presence of Mr.
Corell. The Security Council, in paragraph 4 of its
resolution 1192 (1998), decided that all States, not Libya
alone, shall cooperate with the court. The text is available;
we can look it up if there is any doubt. Since all parties are
called upon to cooperate, how can this argument be used to
prevent the Security Council from acting in accordance with
its obligations by lifting the embargo on Libya? This matter
falls under the competence of the International Court of
Justice and the Scottish court, with which our judiciary
authorities are cooperating. It is blatant interference when
a member of the Security Council tries to influence the
work of these courts, which are independent institutions that
deserve the respect not only of Libya, but of all others as
well.
The third justification is even harder to swallow. It is
the demand that Libya compensate the families of the
victims. How can this be done when the court has yet to
sit? It will not hold its first session until 4 February 2000
and the laws state that the suspect is innocent until proven
guilty. When we raised this issue, it was suggested that we
settle out of court. Why out of court? Why then is the court
in the Netherlands? We were told that these are American
laws. American laws apply to United States citizens, not to
Libyan citizens. The Security Council and the General
Assembly reiterated last year and the year before that
national laws cannot be applied beyond national borders.
This logic of power should be used only to uphold the law.
At the joint meeting, the Secretary-General himself was
surprised to hear this proposal before the court was in
session. They reiterated it. He asked them how it could be
done. They said that the court would hand down a sentence.
He pointed out that it had not yet done so and that, if it did,
Libya would be committed to respecting it. How could they
possibly make such a request when the suspects have not
been found guilty? We are trying to prove their innocence
and our country's. How can we be asked to pay
compensation when a ruling has not yet been issued? This
is yet another way of interfering in the internal affairs of
the Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands.
Who will compensate Libya for the damages it has
sustained in excess of $70 billion after seven years of
unjustified sanctions and embargoes? Who will compensate
us? The United Nations? Will the Member States
compensate Libya for something they have not done? Let
us be logical and work within the law on the basic
principles of justice. Since we have agreed to the
establishment of the court, let us allow the court to carry
out its responsibilities.
Libya's fulfilment of its obligations has also been
underlined in the Secretary-General's report, in the
decisions of the thirty-fifth African Summit held in
Algeria last July, in the decisions of the Arab League this
September and in the decisions of the Ministerial Council
of the Non-Aligned Movement a week ago. All these
decisions call for the immediate and complete lifting of
the sanctions. In this, they join the overwhelming majority
of the international community.
Preventing the Security Council from adopting an
overdue resolution lifting sanctions that should not have
been imposed in the first place will threaten the Council's
credibility and ability to honour its obligations. It will
also reinforce the Security Council's failure to act in
compliance with the will of the majority of the United
Nations Member States and in accordance with the
principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, as
stated in Article 24. The will of one State cannot
represent the will of the entire international community.
My country requests one thing: that the Security
Council speedily adopt a decision lifting all the sanctions
imposed on Libya. We demand that the case not be
allowed to be politicized after the matter has taken its
legal course. The case should be left entirely to the
Scottish court in the Netherlands, without any interference
from any political entity, including the Security Council.
If the Security Council continues to be prevented from
adopting such a decision, my country will take all
necessary steps to guarantee fairness, including raising a
constitutional dilemma between the highest and most
important judiciary organ, the International Court of
Justice, and the Security Council. We will raise it before
the General Assembly in order to have a decision taken.


Let me first congratulate
you, Sir, on your unanimous election as President of the
General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. We likewise
extend our appreciation to Mr. Didier Opertti, the
President of the Assembly at its fifty-third session. We
wish also to convey our appreciation and thanks to His
Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan for his leadership in
promoting the objectives and the mission of the United
Nations.
I wish to convey the warm greetings of President
Kuniwo Nakamura, the entire leadership and the people
of the Republic of Palau to the Assembly on the occasion
of the fifty-fourth session. On behalf of the Government
and the people of Palau, I extend our sincere appreciation
to the members of this body for their assistance.
Since attaining membership of the United Nations in
1994, the Republic of Palau has benefitted greatly from
a variety of United Nations-sponsored programmes and
from international cooperation, which have helped us play
our role in promoting peace and democracy in our region.
This year, on 1 October, we proudly celebrate the fifth
anniversary of our independence, which came about as a
result of a unique and very successful political treaty with
the United States of America under the Compact of Free
Association. Diplomatic relations and economic
cooperation with a growing number of members of this
body assure stability and promise great economic
potential for the future.

Before I proceed, let me take this rare opportunity to
welcome three of our regional neighbours — the Republic
of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of
Tonga — and to congratulate them on joining this
important Organization.
Palau also expresses its appreciation and support for
the efforts of the Security Council in promoting peace,
security and the protection of human rights and democracy
throughout the world, and especially in troubled areas in
need of United Nations intervention.
Today we have less than 100 days left before entering
the new millennium — 97 days to be exact. There are
indeed many global issues and problems that certainly
deserve our attention. The existence of the Earth in the next
millennium may, however, be in great jeopardy if the
environment and nature's forces can no longer support the
human population. Global warming or climate change may
merit the upmost attention and our concerted effort. I call
upon every Member State, large and small, developed and
developing, rich and poor, to work cooperatively to find
meaningful solutions and preventive actions for this
growing international problem and challenge. I am
confident that through sharing information on climate
change we can learn from one another and take the
necessary steps to meet this very dangerous global problem.
Let me share a Palauan proverb with the Assembly,
one that foreshadows climate change. In Palau the winds
are mainly from the east or from the west. When there are
easterly winds, the sky is not so telling before the rain. As
the rain commences, one may think it is just a light shower.
However, it actually comes in a downpour. In the old days
our raincoat was simply several leaves sewn together and
put over our heads. So we would get soaked through and
through during this downpour. The message is: do not
underestimate the easterly winds, or you will get deluged
with water.
That is our message from yesterday, and it is our
message today: do not take climate change lightly, or there
will be dire consequences. Climate change for small island
nations such as the Republic of Palau has great
consequences because of our fragile ecosystem. To expand
on just a few examples, the El Niño phenomenon, which
impacted many communities throughout the globe, had far-
reaching and devastating effects in Palau as well. At least
one third of all our hard coral communities died. Our reefs
are home to over 500 species of corals and 1,500 species of
fish, and are vibrant with marine life. The loss of our coral
communities effects our entire ecosystem and eventually
our people and their economic livelihoods. The El Niño
phenomenon also caused extreme drought that dried up
our main water reservoir and destroyed over 1,400
patches of our most important root crop, taro, which of
course added another burden to our daily lives.
Palau and our Pacific region are also suffering from
unusually high rises in tide tables, causing our farmlands
to be infiltrated with salt water that eventually will have
dire effects on our crops. This high sea level rise has
literally caused islands to disappear, and others are in
imminent danger of disappearing. Abnormally warm
ocean temperatures have also caused extensive coral
bleaching, and rising atmospheric temperatures devastate
agriculture. According to the 1999-2000 World
Development Report, a 1 metre sea level rise due to
climate change would force about 70 million people to
move, and would have a dramatic effect on food security
in central Asia and the Pacific. Many other examples
exist, I am sure.
These few examples, and examples in other
countries, beg for global cooperation on climate change.
The Republic of Palau recognizes the link between
climate change and biodiversity, and is committed to
preserving our biodiversity. Protecting our forests is one
of the most effective mechanisms to slow climate change.
Forests, as we know, are carbon sinks, which absorb
carbon dioxide rather than releasing it as a harmful
greenhouse gas. Because of this, the destruction of forest
has a dramatic impact on climate change. The Republic
of Palau has taken responsibility for its forests through
the National Forest Act and Mangrove Management Plan.
Progress is being made on national regulations requiring
protective vegetative zones along our wetland and coastal
areas. The Republic of Palau sponsors a summer tree
planting programme for our children in order to teach our
youth the importance of our natural resources. We are
taking steps necessary to ensure that our forests and reefs
are available for future generations.
The Republic of Palau has incorporated the grave
issues of climate change and rises in sea level into long-
term strategic planning. Instruments for accession to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Kyoto Protocol are in transmission, and
we humbly request international assistance to develop a
comprehensive vulnerability index that encompasses
economic and environmental factors like climate change.
We enthusiastically support efforts to adjust energy
prices to accurately reflect the environmental
2

consequences of fossil fuel use. Alongside climate change,
energy conservation is critical to Palau's economy and the
environment. We have established a national policy, the
National Energy Goal, to subsidize renewable energy
programmes, and have audited all Government facilities for
energy efficiency. At our national hospital we replaced
standard incandescent lights with energy efficient compact
fluorescent lamps. Solar panels provide lights for our outer
islands and isolated villages. Solar beacons light our reef
channels. Our national energy programme and public utility
corporation are in partnership with the Million Solar
Rooftops initiative to educate the public about renewable
energy applications. Let us start off the new century with
a dynamic move away from fossil fuels and towards a
commitment to environment friendly energy alternatives.
Entering into relevant agreements and conventions
which target international response to environmental issues
is another responsibility that our Republic has to its people
and this world community. It is one that we are fulfilling as
time goes on, being a signatory and party to eight
international agreements, including the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Republic of Palau views climate change as being
in the forefront of issues that need to be addressed, and that
can only be effectively addressed if all Member States
meaningfully contribute on the basis of common but
differentiated responsibilities. The use of the Kyoto
mechanisms is an integral component of a global solution
to the issue of climate change. Therefore, it is critical that
no artificial restrictions be placed on the use of these
mechanisms. If we can all come to terms with the intent of
the Kyoto mechanisms and develop a fair and realistic
approach to their use, there will be no sufficient reason why
we cannot enter the new millennium with positive remedies
to the issue of climate change. Maybe we can even enter
the new millennium with a breath of fresh air.
As we travel towards the new millennium, let us move
forward with the tools that we have developed as an
international family, so that the benefits, although they may
go unseen in our generation, may be fully appreciated by
our children and their children. These initiatives shall be
our imprint, our assurance of a healthier environment for
generations to come.


I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Gurirab, on your
assumption of the office of President of this body. My
Government hails the selection of a distinguished leader
from a new developing nation to lead the General Assembly
into the new millennium. We are also confident that you
will live up to the high standards of your esteemed
predecessor, Mr. Opertti.
It is with pride that I congratulate and extend a
welcome to our Pacific island neighbours — the Republic
of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the great Kingdom
of Tonga — on their admission into the United Nations
family. This represents a large contribution from our region
to the attainment of a key goal of the United Nations
system, that of universality.
I want to extend the sincere condolences of the people
of the Federated States of Micronesia for the earthquakes
in Turkey, Greece and, more recently, in Taiwan.
We are saddened by the violence in East Timor as its
people seek to exercise their right to self-determination.
We also feel deep sympathy for the innocent
families in Russia, exposed to merciless bomb attacks,
and for those people in all regions of the world who are
suffering today from violence, terrorism and violations of
human rights.
Condolences are also in order on the recent death of
His Majesty Hassan II of Morocco. His strong personal
contributions to the process of achieving peace in the
Middle East will be remembered.
As Chairman of the South Pacific Forum, I am
privileged to deliver the following remarks on behalf of
its 16 member countries.
The South Pacific Forum is a unique organization
centred on the Heads of Government of 16 Pacific nations
which share a very special part of the world: the vast
expanses of ocean and islands in the central and western
Pacific, both north and south of the Equator. Forum
member countries vary greatly in land area, ocean area,
population, resource endowment, economic development,
social structures, language and culture. However, we all
share a common bond as Forum members and have
established consensus positions, which transcend our
diversity, on a wide range of issues. We have also agreed
to work together in pursuit of regional stability and
towards the well-being of our people. Fourteen of these
Forum members are small island developing States. Much
work has been done to assist these smaller members in
their pursuit of sustainable development. Such initiatives
are reflected in proposals by the Forum’s Ministers of
economics, for extensive economic reforms. Recently,
Forum trade Ministers made ground-breaking
recommendations on trade initiatives which include the
establishment of a Pacific free trade area consistent with
the rules and standards of the World Trade Organization.
These recommendations will be considered by the Forum
heads of Government at their annual meeting in Palau
next month.
Past practice has been for the formal statement from
each annual meeting, known as the Forum Communiqué,
to be offered for inclusion as a document of the General
Assembly. As the meeting this year will take place after
the conclusion of the general debate, a request for
inclusion of the Forum Communiqué from the Palau
meeting will be made at a later date.
Last year, at their meeting in Pohnpei, Federated
States of Micronesia, all 16 Forum leaders reaffirmed
their endorsement of the Barbados Programme of Action
14

for the Sustainable Development of Small Island
Developing States. The leaders saw the Programme of
Action as a comprehensive framework with great potential
for the region, and commended implementation efforts
already under way at the national and regional levels.
In this regard, Forum leaders strongly supported the
General Assembly initiative to hold, next week, the special
session to review progress under the Barbados Programme
of Action. Forum countries have maintained close
involvement with the preparatory process for the special
session, and appreciate the strong focus on the concerns of
small island developing States in the work of United
Nations bodies such as the Commission on Sustainable
Development. We look forward to outcomes from the
special session that will bring a new and stronger focus on
our needs in the pursuit of sustainable development, and
step up the pace of measures to implement the Barbados
Programme of Action.
The common need for accelerated and sustainable
economic development remains a major focus among the
Forum member countries; in fact, the Forum itself has for
some time been implementing what is known as the Forum
Economic Action Plan. The Plan attempts to address
regional concerns, which are echoed in the Barbados
Programme of Action. Forum members feel that the
advancement of this collective, regional Plan is a
constructive response to the mandate for regional action
expressed in the Barbados Programme.
In the context of overall economic development
planning and assistance and of social and ecological
concerns, Forum members continue to maintain a keen
interest in having the United Nations adopt a vulnerability
index. The existing criteria for determining eligibility for
concessional aid and trade treatment and for critical
classifications such as least developed country status are
purely macroeconomic, without any consideration of the
environmental and natural risks we face, as a region, on
a daily basis. Regional work has already begun under the
South Pacific Geoscience Commission on developing an
environmental vulnerability index. Only by encompassing
social and environmental factors within its assessments
will the international community be able to achieve equity
when addressing the special circumstances and needs of
small island developing countries. We appreciate the
continuing discussion of this matter by the Commission
on Sustainable Development, including at its most recent
session, and call for tangible action by the year 2000.
In last year’s general debate, the Forum expressed
renewed hopes for the United Nations process to combat
anthropogenic global warming, sea-level rise and other
adverse effects of global climate change. We took a
measure of pride that our group, which includes both
Annex I and developing countries, found common ground
at the political level to call for effective action, despite
the widely differing circumstances of member States. It
seemed that with the successful negotiation of the Kyoto
Protocol, the world’s nations had finally recognized the
need to begin taking action, on the basis of legally
binding commitments, to achieve specified targets and
timetables. Forum members were also relieved by the
recognition that small island developing States have
particular needs for assistance with adapting to the effects
of climate change. We welcomed the formulation of
specific tools, such as the Clean Development
Mechanism, which promise to be useful in enabling island
countries to do their part in combating combat climate
change, within the framework and parameters of our own
national circumstances.
There is of course no time to be lost. People
everywhere are experiencing the sometimes disastrous
effects of climate change. From record-setting droughts to
killer floods, hurricanes and typhoons, the effects of sea-
level rise are already taking a toll on small island States.
Unfortunately, even as scientific evidence of climate
change has become impossible to ignore, the parties to
the Convention have yet to go very far towards getting
the Kyoto process under way. The political will of the
Governments of the parties simply does not match the
technical dedication of delegates to pursuing solutions at
the numerous meetings that are taking place on this
subject.
15

After attending the Conference of the Parties to the
Convention last year in Buenos Aires, I came away with
the impression that without a real sense of urgency the
Convention might choke on its own complexity, to the
delight of the minority that opposes it. Unless all countries
align themselves with the Convention’s purposes and take
urgent collective action, we could find ourselves here at the
seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly, without
being any closer to meaningful implementation of the
Convention. By that time, leaders would be expressing
regret over a steadily growing list of climate-related
disasters and watching the pile of sandbags along the FDR
Drive outside as the tidal surges along the East River grow
stronger. By that time, of course, most island nations in the
Forum would have disappeared and we would have failed
utterly. Discussing emission reductions would be a hollow
gesture by then.
Even though our spirits are bolstered by the
encouragement of our annex I Forum partners Australia and
New Zealand, the 14 Forum small island States grow weary
of calling attention to our special vulnerability to climate
change and to our status on the front line of potential
worldwide catastrophe. I would sincerely hope that by now
a great majority of people, not only in the United Nations
system but from all across the globe, have a strong mental
picture of the helpless situation of low-lying islands and
coastlines in the face of rising seas. We are very grateful
for the considerable extent to which our pleas have been
taken into account, but while we may flatter ourselves that
we have served, in a way, as a voice of conscience for the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, we wish also
to make positive contributions to its implementation.
Thus, the emphasis of all Forum members now is to
assure that we do our part to participate in and to advance
the considerable amount of work that must be done. The
South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme
continues to serve our governments as a useful focal point
and to provide valuable expertise. Forum countries have
long been active in working to understand the potential of
the Clean Development Mechanism for the region. The
Republic of the Marshall Islands recently hosted an
important workshop on the Clean Development Mechanism
that was attended by more than 40 countries, and in June,
Australia and the Forum secretariat hosted a workshop in
Nadi.
We are severely hampered, however, by the shortage
of personnel and financial resources to maintain continuous
participation in the host of ongoing activities. The United
Nations and bilateral donors have been very generous in
supporting our attendance at conferences, but the time
demands on our short-staffed officials at home and abroad
can be overwhelming, considering other growing concerns
such as biodiversity, the oceans and coral reefs.
I know that this problem is by no means unique to
Forum island countries, nor even to small developing
countries as a group. But for us, as well as for many
others, we ask that these limitations should not be
disregarded by larger countries and organizations in the
management of the international agenda. Once again, we
express sincere appreciation for the support of donors that
have made our participation possible. In addition, we
would emphasize the importance of applying a
coordinated approach to scheduling in order to facilitate
the participation of small delegations that would not wish
to be marginalized by overlapping meetings on topics of
critical concern to us.
Finally, another topic of concern for the Forum at
the next annual meeting will be the continuing shipment
by industrialized Powers of plutonium and radioactive
wastes through our region. Forum nations have
consistently expressed their concerns on this issue,
especially about liability and compensation arrangements
in the event of an accident. From 16 to 17 September this
year, discussions took place in Suva between the legal
experts of the Forum countries and the representatives of
France, Japan and the United Kingdom concerning trans-
shipments of nuclear materials through the region. This
meeting was arranged by the Forum secretariat, in line
with the 1998 Forum Communiqué. We are encouraged
by this development and strongly urge the representatives
of the three shipping States to demonstrate their readiness
to explore innovative ways to address the concerns of
Forum members: there is more at stake than the well-
being and comfort of the larger populations in the North.
Putting this disregard for the sovereign interests of
Forum countries to one side for a moment, the Pacific
Ocean is a vital breadbasket for the entire planet: any
accident will have serious and adverse implications far
beyond our shores for generations to come.
Forum countries have derived some encouragement
from the decision by France, Japan and the United
Kingdom to consult with Forum members regarding
safety and compensation arrangements for the most recent
shipment of mixed oxide fuel from Europe to Japan. We
are further encouraged by the decision of the three
shipping States to provide information on the shipping
routes of the two ships carrying the fuel, consistent with
16

the rigorous safety and security obligations with which they
must comply under the international conventions governing
transport of nuclear materials, including the Convention on
the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials.
We, the Forum countries, earnestly hope to make
some inroads, not only in the immediate situation but, more
importantly, in the long run, into the ethical consciences of
the developed nations. Since time immemorial they have
regarded our region as a convenient area for any kind of
dangerous or undesirable activity that serves their interests
at home. With the welcome admission to this body of three
more of our number, we are now numerous enough in this
forum to assert forcefully that we wish no further invasion
to place our peoples at risk, irrespective of the reasons
others may have for choosing to disregard our concerns.
I have by no means touched on every topic of concern
that is to be discussed at the next Forum meeting.
Following that meeting, as I stated earlier, the complete
Communiqué will be submitted to this body, and I
commend it to all delegations.
The views I have expressed on behalf of the South
Pacific Forum are, of course, fully embraced by my
country, the Federated States of Micronesia. I would like
now to address other issues, speaking only for my own
small island developing State.
Since 1991, when the Federated States of Micronesia
was admitted to membership in this body, we have
experienced — from the viewpoint of a developing country
and particularly as a small island developing State — a
truly unique decade in multilateral relations. We emerged
on the international scene just in time to become a part of
the movement that radically changed previous notions about
development, namely the Rio process. The timing could not
have been better for us. Just as we took up the task of
formulating our own agenda for the future of our island
nation, the world as a whole came to recognize that the
issues of environment and development are not opposed
but, rather, are intertwined. We thus incorporated into our
development planning from the outset a mandate not just
for development, but for sustainable development.
We feel fortunate in this regard and in how the
principle of sustainability is fully integral to our activities,
for, while we are deeply appreciative of the concerns that
other nations have shown for the difficulties faced by small
island States like ourselves, and while we remain anxious
for the further implementation of the Barbados Programme
of Action, we realize that the action referred to must be,
first and foremost, our own. We ourselves must be very
serious not only in recognizing our special development
obstacles but in instituting and carrying out programmes
to overcome them in a sustainable way. And this must be
done, not as a temporary, short-term or even medium-
term proposition, but as a way of life for generations to
come.
No amount of outside assistance can provide
sustainable development. As small-island countries, we
must individually and collectively commit ourselves to
staying the course once we have seen it and possess the
means to navigate it. Without that commitment, our sails
will never fill and we will remain adrift on a journey that
can only come to a sad end.
As a new member of the international community,
we have been faced with the need to rapidly become
familiar with the dynamics of multilateral interaction
within the United Nations system while at the same time
trying to acquire a practical working knowledge of the
various simultaneous processes. But there is no
apprenticeship here at the United Nations.
From the outset, it has been our full responsibility to
participate, on a basis of equality, in the ongoing work of
numerous bodies directly integral to the United Nations or
related to it. It has been, and continues to be, a
demanding experience, but inasmuch as we have learned
about others, we are also learning more about ourselves
and moving towards greater maturity as a nation.
We have also developed a deep appreciation for the
often unheralded but vital work of translating global
problems into solutions that is pursued faithfully by the
thousands of administrative and diplomatic members of
the United Nations family. It is difficult to conceive of a
future in which the nations of our ever-shrinking planet
will not have a forum such as this — the United Nations.
Yet one cannot help but be uneasy on hearing
whispers of discouragement as the United Nations is
challenged by issues that seem to grow in number and
complexity. We sometimes hear that perhaps the
Organization has outlived its usefulness and has
inadequate capacity to deal with global crises in the areas
of security, social justice and the environment. Some are
said to feel that other, more sharply focused bodies would
be better suited to dealing with the anticipated crises of
the new millennium.
17

Without question, the effective responsiveness of this
Organization is constantly being challenged. But this is not
a sign of failure, nor of a lack of capacity. Neither does it
suggest that we need another instrument. It is, rather, an
indication of the growing interconnectedness of the global
community, and of the growing inclination among nations
to find and recognize their common interests and to work
together to advance global peace and harmony.
In order to maintain and improve the responsiveness
of the United Nations in a world of increasing demands and
challenges, it is necessary that we continually evolve and
adapt effectively in our pursuit of the ideals of the Charter
of this Organization. Only in this way can we keep the
Organization on a positive course and faithfully translate
the mandates of the Charter into terms of continuing
relevance. This is the attitude with which we must approach
reform. It is not a consequence of inadequacy, which the
word “reform” may suggest, but, rather, it is a positive and
evolutionary process.
This is easily said, but, as we all know, it is very
difficult to put into practice. Even so, we must not allow
that high degree of difficulty to plunge us into frustration
and defeat. The great achievements of those who have
come before us in the last 54 years must be honoured by
our unshakable determination to take the United Nations
seriously into the next millennium as the single most
effective multilateral instrument for the betterment of
humankind.
If the United Nations is to maintain and even improve
its capacity to deal with major issues and improve the lot
of disadvantaged peoples, I respectfully suggest that there
is a need for broader incorporation of developing countries
in the decision-making process. More and more, it seems,
a relatively small group of developed countries are seen on
the front lines here and in other related international bodies.
There is a perception that, despite the formal application of
the rules, the substantive participation of developing
countries in dealing with world problems is in reality
waning rather than increasing. This does not bode well for
the future of international relations. As the trend towards
globalization continues to strengthen, this body as a whole
will need to be more involved in making important
decisions — not a permanent 5, not a G-7, but a “G-188”.
Probably the single most urgently needed reform is the
enlargement of the Security Council. Naturally, such an
important step must not be taken in haste, but by this time
we should be closer to finding an acceptable formulation.
The plain fact is that the openness of the most powerful
nations to accept rational and realistic change in the
Security Council is a key indicator of the future of global
multilateral relations in general, and of this Organization
in particular. The impact of success with this issue would
be felt in positive ways throughout the United Nations
Organization, and it would stimulate renewed confidence
in the Charter. That result alone is badly needed and
should itself inspire greater effort to overcome the
difficulties ahead.
It would be unrealistic to ignore the inevitability of
the fact that larger, more powerful nations will most often
take the lead in the United Nations. In fact, they should
do so as a matter of responsibility; they possess the
resources and the capacity. However, leadership should
not become domination, and it should not leave the
developing world marginalized. I therefore emphasize the
need for a restructured Security Council. I also visualize
a General Assembly that remains in the forefront of
global decision-making, for real outcomes on real issues.
Being from a Pacific island nation, I naturally have
particular concerns about our region. Without demeaning
in any way the considerable attention that we do receive,
I must say that the Pacific islands region often takes a
back seat in the councils of the greater Powers, which are
prone to include only the Pacific rim countries among
their primary concerns. This can be understood, given our
small populations and land masses, which only underscore
our remoteness in the vast Pacific Ocean.
But it should not be forgotten that we Pacific
islanders are custodians of some of the world's greatest
untapped wealth. In the coming millennium, our region is
certain to play a greater role than ever before in meeting
the needs of the rest of the world for food and mineral
resources. If these resources are to be conserved in the
proper way and harvested in a sustainable manner, the
peoples of the Pacific islands must be dealt with fairly,
and on a basis of partnership with the developed world.
And the time to start is now.
The growing global involvement with and reliance
upon the tremendous resource base in our region must
rest on a foundation of regional security. Nowhere is
there a better example of the need for comprehensive
security in the modern sense, extending beyond military
considerations and also including economic, social and
environmental security.
This leads me to the present need for proper
stewardship of the oceans and seas throughout the world.
18

This subject was recently discussed in depth by the
Commission on Sustainable Development, and it is on our
agenda at this session. I want to emphasize that the
Federated States of Micronesia solidly supports the
positions expressed by the Alliance of Small Island States
on this subject. We believe that oceans and seas present a
special, even crucial, case for international cooperation and
coordination, and that the General Assembly is the
appropriate body to provide this oversight. Indeed, it was
mandated to do so by Agenda 21.
Furthermore, the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea provides the framework for action in this
area. We thus have existing structures; there is no need to
create new institutions. We believe that the size of the task
will require continuing effort on an annual basis, so that an
ongoing working-group format within the context of
preparations for each annual General Assembly will be
more rewarding than a large, one-time conference. Above
all, the process must seek the widest possible input,
drawing upon expertise at the regional level, and providing
assistance to ensure the participation of developing
countries, especially small island States.
In these brief moments it is not possible to express all
our views on all the matters we deem important. Of
necessity, therefore, I must leave much to the work of our
representatives in the Committees here and in other United
Nations organs throughout the year.
I wish, however, to plead with this body for a
universal awakening to the single most important reality of
our lives today. This reality is that all our interests become
more closely linked with each passing generation. We are
all responsible for turning back the consequences of our
past selfish behaviour. The destruction of war, the improper
stewardship of our natural resources and the pollution of
our living space are looming global disasters. Combined,
they will overwhelm the Earth's population unless we find
common ground and take action.
That common ground exists. It exists here. It does not
ask us to surrender our nationhood or our cultures. It is the
Charter of the United Nations, a visionary document that
has guided our troubled world through the faltering steps of
increasing multilateral awareness, and today provides a
format for our very survival. God grant that we will have
the political will to sustain it.


Mr. President, the session of the
General Assembly over which you are presiding marks the
last to be held this century. We are about to turn a new leaf
in history. It is, therefore, a time for reflection, a time to
reap our lessons and draw our conclusions. It is also a time
to reorganize our goals, priorities and our agenda for the
next century.
Therefore, there is a recurrent theme throughout this
session. We all try to assess what we have achieved and
where we have failed in the twentieth century. As we look
back on our performance, we observe that within every
success story, we also somehow had our failures.
The twentieth century has witnessed unprecedented
scientific progress. These achievements, however, were not
used solely to advance the human cause and to improve the
quality of life. To a very large extent, these scientific and
technological innovations were also used as instruments for
the destruction of life. Throughout the century, there was an
enormous accumulation of wealth. But the vast majority of
the world's population is deprived of this wealth. Poverty,
and sometimes even hunger, is still their fate.
This century has produced great intellectual
achievements and depth. But it has also been the stage of
distorted ideologies which produced tyrannies and
sometimes encouraged practices like ethnic cleansing. In
other words, while the twentieth century created technology
and generated material and intellectual wealth, it could not
organize the means to put them totally to the service of
humanity as a whole. This is our failure. This is the
challenge we face. This is what we must overcome.
The global issues we face, whether political,
economic, social or environmental, will from now on
require further intensification of our concerted efforts. As
the primary forum for international cooperation, the
United Nations will continue to be the focal point of our
collective endeavours.
The wealth of experience accumulated by the United
Nations, together with the plans of action devised to
address the challenges we face, must now be put to more
effective use. The millennium summit next year should
provide the guidance needed to place our assets to work
more efficiently in the twenty-first century.
A little over a month ago, one of the deadliest
earthquakes of the century struck the northwest of
Turkey. This is the most populous region of my country.
The devastating quake claimed more than 15,000 lives,
and thrice as many were wounded. It left about half a
million people homeless. We have, undoubtedly, derived
great fortitude from the exemplary display of solidarity
and the swift response of the international community.
The best qualities of human nature were at work: sharing
the other's agony and lending a hand to help heal and to
reconstruct.
I would like to convey the gratitude of the
Government and the people of Turkey to all Members,
the international community, the United Nations system,
along with the numerous volunteers and individuals who
stood with us at our most trying hour.
We express our deep feelings of sympathy for and
solidarity with those affected by the earthquake near
Taipei. In the face of the recent wave of earthquakes, we
believe this Organization can take a further step with
regard to natural disasters. This would be in keeping with
the greater role of the United Nations in our lives. That
is why my country, together with our neighbour Greece,
which also suffered a similar calamity recently, is
introducing a draft resolution to the General Assembly.
This was eloquently announced by my Greek counterpart,
George Papandreou, yesterday in the General Assembly.
We hope that it will receive Members' support.
On the eve of the twenty-first century, Turkey looks
forward to enhancing its contribution to international
peace and stability. At the epicentre of Eurasia, it aspires
to broaden the scope of cooperation and prosperity, while
it continues in its traditional role of connecting continents
and civilizations.
37

More specifically, Turkey is actively involved in the
efforts to secure peace and stability in the Balkans, the
Middle East, the southern Caucasus region and Central
Asia. We also partake in their democratic and economic
development efforts. Turkey enjoys the vast potential of
historical and cultural affinities with many of the countries
in the Caucasus region and Central Asia. We will work for
the resolution of the various conflicts in the region and
continue to foster ever closer relations with all of them.
Cooperation can rapidly lead the peoples of this region
to higher levels of wealth and prosperity. Central Asia will
certainly witness tremendous economic development, given
its rich human and natural resources. Turkey, lying at the
hub, will become an energy terminal, connecting in more
ways than one, the wealth and resources of Eurasia. We see
the mega-projects of the next century realized in our
country and our region.
We are committed to the vision of a peaceful,
democratic, and prosperous future in south-eastern Europe.
We will continue to bring forth our resources and
contributions to that end. The need for a large-scale and
long-term stabilization and reconstruction programme for
the entire region, and more urgently for Kosovo, is evident.
We therefore welcome the stability pact for South-Eastern
Europe. In this context, it is important that the agreements
and arrangements on Kosovo are fully implemented, along
with the continuation of support and assistance to Albania
and Macedonia.
As the wounds of the Bosnian tragedy are yet to be
healed, the provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement must
be strictly observed and implemented.
The tragedies in the Balkans have taught us to be
absolutely cautious and balanced in addressing conflict,
whether ethnic or otherwise. We do not have the luxury of
acting upon selective memory or one-sided preferences. We
cannot afford to impose solutions that do not correspond to
the realities and to the aspirations of the peoples concerned.
A case in point is Cyprus. Until 1974 the Turkish
Cypriots suffered a great deal in protecting their legitimate
rights and interests. There can be no return to those dark
days. A just and lasting compromise in Cyprus today can
only be based upon the existing realities. There are two
separate peoples, two separate States in Cyprus. These two
States should be able to solve their differences through their
own free will. In the meantime, there could be steps to
improve the atmosphere between the two sides by lifting
the unjust embargo on the Turkish Cypriots and by also
adopting deconfrontational measures, as proposed by the
United Nations Secretary-General.
On our part, we believe that the confederation
proposal provides the basis for a realistic and viable
settlement in Cyprus.
We are encouraged by the recent developments in
the Middle East peace process. Once mutual tolerance and
understanding start to fully reign over this region, we
believe all nations will display fully their historic
economic capabilities and their wisdom. My country will
continue to actively support the aim of reaching lasting
peace and security in the Middle East.
Following an exchange of letters with my Greek
counterpart, George Papandreou, about three months ago,
our two countries, Turkey and Greece, initiated joint
committees to work on specific issues. Since then high-
ranking officials of the Foreign Ministries held two
rounds of meetings and explored the possibilities of
promoting cooperation. Committees were mandated in the
fields of tourism, environment, trade, culture, regional
cooperation and the fight against organized crime, illegal
immigration, drug trafficking and terrorism.
Both sides are agreed that there is scope for further
cooperation in these fields and identified specific projects
to this end. Turkey has the will to carry this process to
other spheres of our relationship. Following the
earthquakes that struck the two countries, the emotions
and solidarity displayed by the Turkish and Greek peoples
demonstrate that the two peoples will not accept
confrontation and tension as a way of life, and that they
prefer friendship. This powerful message of our peoples
will help our Governments to move forward with greater
confidence.
Turkey will this year host the last summit of the
century. The Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) summit to be held in Istanbul in
November will set the stage for important decisions. The
outcome will play a significant role in shaping the future
security and cooperation architecture in the Eurasian
landscape.
Our political resolve to promote peace and stability
over such a wide horizon is on record. Given the
opportunity, we are prepared to take upon ourselves even
greater responsibilities.
38

Turkey has presented its candidature for membership
on the United Nations Security Council for 2001-2002. We
want to contribute to the making of the next millennium as
a member of the Council. We ask for Members' support.
The compelling lesson to be drawn from the twentieth
century is that our highest priority should be the protection
of the dignity of humankind and the enhancement of the
quality of life. Whether it is to halt aggression, to stop
crimes against humanity, to purge societies of racist and
xenophobic tendencies, of cultural and religious intolerance,
to combat international terrorism, to provide humanitarian
assistance, to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor
or to secure sustainable economic and social development,
we should act as an international coalition — that is, as the
United Nations.
Let us make the twenty-first century the new age of
nations united for a more humane and prosperous era for
all.


I
wish first of all, on behalf of my delegation, to join other

speakers in congratulating you, Sir, on your unanimous
election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its
fifty-fourth session. The tact and insight you have displayed
from the outset bode well for the success of our work.
I also pay tribute to His Excellency Mr. Didier Opertti,
who guided the work of the Assembly at its fifty-third
session, and to His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan for his
timely report on the work of the Organization and for the
important statement he delivered to the General Assembly.
On behalf of my country, I welcome the new
Members of the United Nations: the Republic of Kiribati,
the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga. We
congratulate them warmly on joining the great United
Nations family.
During the twentieth century, which is now drawing to
a close, the world has been profoundly affected by many
striking events. In the sphere of technology, for example,
we have seen great progress leading to the expansion of
communication to the point where the world has become a
global village. The world rejoices at its liberation from
apartheid and from colonialism in nearly all countries.
Here, my delegation welcomes the endeavours of the
United Nations, including its focus on the solidarity that is
the foundation of our Organization, which led to that
success.
But those positive achievements do not mean that all
has been perfect in the twentieth century. In fact, a variety
of disasters and tragedies inflicted on humans by humans
continue to ravage mankind. Despite scientific progress,
epidemics continue to take human lives by the thousand.
Two particularly dreadful world wars devastated the world.
Hateful acts of genocide have been committed.
In that connection, my country, Rwanda, had the
misfortune in 1994 to be the victim of a genocide that took
more than a million lives. Planned and organized by the
government machinery of the day, that genocide was
carried out in full view of the international community,
which was unable to stop it. The people of Rwanda appeals
to the conscience of the international community never
again to permit such a tragedy anywhere in the world. We
have every right to expect this.
As we express that wish, investigations have been
carried out by countries such as Belgium and France, and
others, by the Organization of African Unity and the United
Nations, are under way to identify those responsible for the
genocide in Rwanda. We want those responsible to be
subject to punishment throughout the world.
Further, we welcome the General Assembly address
by President Clinton of the United States, in which he
referred to the creation of an international coalition
against genocide, an idea that had been put forward at the
fiftieth session by His Excellency Mr. Pasteur Bizimungu,
President of the Rwandese Republic.
In the wake of the genocide, nearly the entire
population of Rwanda was displaced. Most Rwandese
were widows, of whom 34 per cent had become heads of
household. There were thousands of orphans, most of
whom had also become heads of their households. Many
children were involved in these acts of genocide; they
deserve to be reeducated in an appropriate setting. My
Government has an ambitious programme to take up the
challenge of helping survivors of the genocide coexist
with the perpetrators.
We are fortunate today that thanks to the vigorous
measures which have been taken and to the support of the
international community, my Government has been able
to ensure security throughout its territory, bring the
refugees home and house them, get the economy back on
track and ensure food security.
After the genocide of 1994, Rwanda found itself
with its judicial system completely destroyed and its
prisons crammed with suspects. The Government
therefore began rebuilding the national judicial system
and collaborated in establishing international judicial
machinery to deal with that heinous crime against
humanity, genocide.
I must pay a tribute here to the international
community, which came to my country’s assistance by
establishing the United Nations International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). But we must highlight that
although we welcome the establishment of the Tribunal,
we regret the slowness of its trial procedures and its
sometimes secretive way of choosing suspects to try. The
Government of Rwanda states that it is nevertheless
willing to collaborate with the Tribunal and to do
everything possible to speed up its proceedings.
One of the difficulties involved in arresting the
criminals who committed genocide in Rwanda is that
when the Government that organized the genocide fell, all
its various acolytes scattered throughout the world.
Fortunately, some of them have been arrested with the
27

assistance of the countries that took them in. We wish to
pay a ringing tribute to the fraternal countries that have
arrested and extradited criminals sought by the Tribunal for
Rwanda. We urge them to continue their cooperation and
call on those that have not yet been able to do so to fulfil
this obligation to humankind.
We note with satisfaction also that in his report
(S/1999/957) on the protection of civilians in armed
conflict, the Secretary-General recommends to the Security
Council that it should make full cooperation obligatory
between Member States with the International Criminal
Tribunals for Rwanda and for Yugoslavia. We note also
that this recommendation by the Secretary-General is in line
with the wishes of the several speakers who have spoken
up either in the Security Council or here in the Assembly,
against the culture impunity. In this we find hope that there
will never again, anywhere in the world, be a genocide.
I would mention another very important programme by
my Government: for national reconciliation and to establish
the constitutional rule of law. As part of the programme,
my Government has established two commissions: the
National Commission for Human Rights and the
Commission for National Unity and Reconciliation. The
mission of these two commissions is to promote the
positive values of mutual respect and national reconciliation
which, along with education in participatory democracy, are
the top priorities for the people of Rwanda.
Concerning the democratization of our institutions, it
is a pleasure for me to announce from this rostrum that the
democratization process has started, with local elections,
which should ensure, more than before, participation by the
population in managing the business of the State. This
process also has on its agenda the purpose of giving young
people and women a greater role in that management.
The United Nations has a Charter whose principles
and purposes serve to guide us towards a world of
solidarity, of harmony and security. But there have been
many failures despite our common aspirations to peace.
This is sufficient proof that the way in which our
Organization is functioning betrays its very reason for
existence. That is why, during this session, many
delegations — and particularly the current President of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), Mr. Abdelaziz
Bouteflika — have shown that reform of the United
Nations and, more particularly, of the Security Council is
both necessary and urgent. We join those delegations that
have already spoken in favour of this long-awaited reform.
A few moments ago I referred to the great
achievements of science. Here, I could not fail to mention
the concept of globalization. Convinced of the benefits of
trade and between peoples, we in Rwanda believe that
this new system brings with it new hopes. Nevertheless,
we fear that the structural differences between our various
economies will require altering the expectations of our
peoples, whom globalization is supposed to serve. We
therefore believe that the effectiveness of globalization
will be measured in terms of how it contributes to
resolving such sensitive questions as the poverty
eradication, the debt burden, and peace and security.
Another factor for the success of globalization is the
establishment of viable regional economic arrangements
through integration based on cooperation between
developing countries. We are happy that Africa has
already started to move in this direction, whether within
OAU or the African Economic Community or in
subregional organizations. We are very pleased also to
note the contribution of the economic organizations in
Africa, not only to the development effort but also to
conflict prevention and resolution.
In this connection we applaud the role the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) countries have
played in preventing and resolving conflicts in the
subregion. We likewise applaud the regional and bilateral
initiatives that have given rise to such great hopes for
peace, particularly in West Africa, in the Horn of Africa,
in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine, in East
Timor and in the Balkan region. We do earnestly request
the international community to support these efforts.
I particularly applaud the efforts of the Secretary-
General and the resolve he has shown in increasing the
efficiency of the United Nations in the area of peace and
international security. The delegation of Rwanda, for its
part, contributed to the discussions of the Security
Council on 17 and 30 September this year (S/PV.4046
(Resumption 1) and S/PV.4049 (Resumption 2)), on
conflict in Africa. In this respect, my delegation truly
appreciates the very important contribution of the
President of Zambia, Frederick Chiluba, in Security
Council discussions (S/PV.4047).
The Agreement on a ceasefire in the Democratic
Republic of Congo signed in Lusaka on 10 July 1999
(S/1999/815) is a commitment by the signatories to
respect and participate fully in the peace process. Two
important clauses support this agreement: first, the clause
on inter-Congolese political negotiations towards a new
28

political order in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
and secondly, the clause on pursuing and disarming the
armed groups, including former Rwandan soldiers and the
Interahamwe militias who perpetrated the genocide of 1994
and later became integrated into the army of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Agreement also
provides for various methods by which it is to be put into
effect, and also contains clauses that will help preserve it in
both spirit and letter.
In this respect, I recall that subparagraph b of
paragraph 2 of article 1 of the Agreement requires the
signatories parties to cease hostile propaganda; the goal is
to ensure that the Ceasefire Agreement is respected.
Nevertheless, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Ndombasi, from
this rostrum, violently attacked my country, Rwanda. There
is no need for me to revisit those outrageous accusations,
because our representative has had the occasion to explain
our intervention in the crisis in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. I simply wish to respond to one of his concerns,
many times repeated in his statement.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo several times over asked this
Assembly to intercede with Rwanda so that Rwanda
withdraws from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
By way of response, I declare before this Assembly
that Rwanda welcomes and supports the outcome of the
African initiative and urges the international community to
give its unconditional support to the implementation of the
terms of this Agreement by all the parties, which must
refrain from any violation of the ceasefire. Unfortunately,
we are receiving news that the contrary is happening, for
those who call for implementation of the ceasefire are the
first to violate it.
Nr. Jusys (Lithuania), Vice-President, took the Chair.
For two years already, the Kinshasa Government has
been training, equipping and enrolling in its own army ex-
officers of the former Rwandan armed forces who
committed acts of genocide and should be prosecuted.
Furthermore, these officers, who directed the genocide, are
on the headquarters staff of the army of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. As the representative of Burundi
has just said, these armed elements are fomenting insecurity
and propagating the idea of genocide throughout the region.
Now that the Lusaka Agreement has been signed by
all the parties to the conflict, we dare to hope that a United
Nations peacekeeping force will be deployed as soon as
possible, and that soon peace will reign in our subregion.
May this Agreement enjoy the full support of the entire
international community.


I am pleased to have this
opportunity, the first since my assumption of the presidency
of Guyana, to share with the Assembly some issues of
interest and concern to the Group of 77, which Guyana now
has the honour to chair.
A mere three months remain before mankind enters a
new millennium filled with great hopes. Whether those
hopes are realized will depend largely on the decisions we
take, as an organization of united peoples, on how we
collectively face the future. This fifty-fourth session of the
General Assembly therefore represents a crucial turning
point where we can follow either the high road to
enlightened multilateralism or the low road leading to
narrow self-interest.
I am confident that the Assembly will not fail to take
the right direction. As the Foreign Minister of Namibia, Mr.
President, you have given long and distinguished service to
your country, which, after a bitter struggle against apartheid
rule, stands as an independent and proud member of the
family of nations. On behalf of the Group of 77, I salute
Namibia and offer to you personally our warmest
congratulations and good wishes for a successful Assembly.
To your predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti of Uruguay,
we offer our sincere appreciation for the guidance provided
to the Assembly over the past year.
A warm welcome is also extended to the three new
members of the United Nations — the Republic of Kiribati,
the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga.
And to our Secretary-General I wish to convey our
gratitude for his sustained stewardship of the Secretariat,
and more particularly for his report on the Organization's
work.
The challenges we must address this year are
formidable. Our world continues to be plagued by a
multiplicity of conflicts, both old and new, inter-State and
intra-State, that have not only imperilled global peace and
security but also sap our economic and social vitality.
Whether in Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Middle East or the
Great Lakes region of Africa — to name just a few conflict
zones — a heavy toll is being exacted on human life and
development. Equally disturbing is the apparent inability
of the world community to contain this increase in
tensions and conflicts.
The world Organization is continuously challenged
by the outbreak of internecine strife in one country after
another. Without a clear strategy, the United Nations can
do no more than muddle through these crises in the hope
that the warring factions will eventually see the virtues of
peace. In these distressing circumstances, it is not only
the parties to the conflict that are losers but also the
international community. As a result of the increasing
claims for peacemaking and peacekeeping operations,
developing countries are deprived of much needed
development resources and are politically weakened.
Gradually the United Nations must move forward into the
area of peace-building to obviate recidivism and to
reconstruct shattered societies. By helping to strengthen
democracy, government institutions and the rule of law,
as well as rebuilding the foundations for long-term
development, the Organization can help post-conflict
States to rebuild themselves.
The time may have come to revisit the United
Nations Agenda for Peace, as well as its Agenda for
Development, to see where deficiencies lie and what
could be done to remedy them.
The time has also come to strengthen the Security
Council, the organ primarily responsible for the
maintenance of international peace and security, so that it
may become more democratic, representative and
credible. Of course, the United Nations cannot do what
the parties to conflict are not prepared to do. Without a
true commitment to peace by all involved there can be
scant prospect of any lasting settlement. As we have seen
from recent developments in the Middle East, the parties
involved must show a strong will to resolve the conflict
through peaceful means. Only then can the United
Nations, using the instruments provided by its Charter,
serve to facilitate negotiations for a satisfactory outcome.
Accompanying these threats to international security
and stability are strong economic and social forces which
impact negatively on our countries. While globalization
and trade liberalization have benefited strong economies,
they have also exposed weaker States to marginalization
from the world economy. By opening the floodgates of
trade and finance, globalization has invariably wrought
havoc on small and weak economies, which can do
precious little to withstand its impact. Economic and
social misery have followed in its wake, exposing the
12

particular vulnerabilities of small developing countries,
many of which are dependent on a single agricultural crop
— like bananas or sugar — for the livelihood of their
peoples.
At the regional meetings which have been held thus
far in preparation for the tenth session of the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD
X) caution has been sounded against the worst excesses of
trade liberalization. Having benefited from the Tokyo and
Uruguay Rounds, the industrialized countries are anxious to
hold further negotiations — the mother of all rounds — for
free trade in the next millennium. Theoretically, developing
countries can also gain from increased liberalization.
However, since they are for the most part too weak to take
advantage of the new opportunities, they run the risk of
greater marginalization and, indeed, elimination from the
market place.
Fear of this eventuality is based not on uninformed
speculation, but on the harsh reality of experience. Past
negotiating rounds have yielded significant concessions to
developed economies, while offering relatively little to
developing countries in terms of opening up markets for
their own products. At bottom, the problem is one of an
imbalance in negotiating strength of its contracting parties,
resulting in more favourable outcomes for the strongest. Yet
the developing countries are being urged to enter into a new
round of negotiations, the millennium round, the result of
which is likely to be no different from that of the past
unless its agenda is balanced by issues of concern to the
developing countries.
To be able to enter the global marketplace, developing
countries should be assisted in the strengthening of their
productive capacities and in widening their access to export
markets. They need to be assured of stabilization in the
international financial and monetary system in order to
avoid the hazards of currency fluctuations. Equally
important, given the vast disparity which exists in the
economic capacities of countries, special and differential
treatment should be granted to developing countries in
accordance with the principles outlined in part IV of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the
GATT legislative clause of 1971.
Special consideration will have to be given to Africa,
the least developed countries and structurally weak
economies, in particular the small island developing States,
which are seriously disadvantaged in the area of trade. The
special session to review the Programme of Action with
regard to the sustainable development of small island
developing States, which will be held here in just a matter
of days, and the summit of the least developed countries
scheduled for the year 2001 should serve to generate new
initiatives to help these vulnerable States.
However, to benefit from the international trading
system developing countries must receive significant debt
relief and the necessary official development assistance to
boost the overall productive capability. Consequently, in
the face of rampant globalization, it is imperative that the
international community should come together to create
a modern development vision and strategy aimed at
bridging the dangerous division which now separates the
prosperous from the poor nations. This new approach
should be based on an international consensus on
development and on the rights and obligations of the
partners.
As the preparations undertaken this year for the
review of the summits held in Beijing, Cairo and
Copenhagen have shown, there is an increasing number
of people, the majority of them women and children,
living under adverse conditions caused by poverty.
Despite great strides in the fields of health and education
in the developed world, many developing countries
continue to be plagued by unequal and inadequate access
to education and health care, high infant and maternal
mortality, as well as lack of access to safe drinking water
and proper sanitation. Indeed, low levels of health have
inhibited the achievement of socially and economically
productive lives, not to mention the devastating social and
economic impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, as well as
malaria, on a number of developing countries, particularly
in Africa.
The Cologne initiative to expand the scope and
provision of relief for the heavily indebted poor countries
was a welcome step forward. Unfortunately, however, it
does not go far enough to alleviate the debt burden which
the developing countries still bear. Nothing short of the
cancellation of some of these countries' debts will be
sufficient to improve their circumstances to the point
where they can be active participants in the world
economy. The situation of many low-income countries
has been made even more acute by the rapid decline of
official development assistance in the wake of
globalization's spread and over reliance on the market to
promote development.
The financing of development must therefore be
placed on a more sound and predictable basis. The Group
of 77 therefore attaches the greatest importance to the
13

holding of a high-level conference by the year 2001 to
address this pressing issue. We believe that if Member
States can address all aspects of the problem — particularly
those identified in the Secretary-General's report on
financing for development — we may yet find solutions
that are acceptable and effective. Crucial to the successful
outcome of the conference, however, is a general
acceptance of a more enlightened approach to international
development cooperation based on a genuine concept of
interdependence and partnership.
Indeed, there is an acute need for a new global agenda
with the objective of putting a human face on the
marketplace. Policies aimed merely at creating
unsustainable social safety nets are hardly lasting solutions.
The root causes of the structural and endemic problems of
the developing countries, which ultimately lead to global
instability, must be addressed.
For their part, the developing countries which
constitute the Group of 77 are committed to the search for
ways and means by which we can accelerate the
development process. Even before the conference on
financing for development, we shall meet in Havana, Cuba,
next year for the first ever South summit. The Summit is a
long-cherished idea whose time has finally come. It will
allow the South a special opportunity to examine the impact
which globalization continues to have on developing
countries, as well as the policies and strategies needed to
harness the process and make it more amenable to control.
In this context, North-South relations must be reviewed to
see how they may be enhanced and put on a new basis for
mutual trust and advantage.
Understandably, the central focus of the South Summit
must be the strengthening of the unity and solidarity of the
Group of 77 and the identification of concrete initiatives to
promote practical cooperation between members. We have
also agreed to devote our attention to the promulgation of
knowledge and technology in order, hopefully, to achieve
a quantum leap towards our development. This, after all, is
an area in which the South can boast of remarkable
advances and of many centres of excellence that can be
utilized for the dissemination of skills and technology
among the countries of the Group of 77. The North can, of
course, do much to facilitate these exchanges by providing
requisite financing and supplying appropriate technology
and knowledge that would make the developing countries
more self-reliant and at the same time more competitive in
the world economy.
Coming, as it does, in the early months of the new
millennium, the South summit will certainly provide an
indication of the direction for the future. In Havana we
hope to have in attendance our developed partners, which
significantly, are usually present at all of our important
deliberations as observers. Also expected to participate in
the event are other key players in the development
process, such as our non-governmental organizations and
representatives of the private sector. Together, through an
interactive dialogue, we hope to forge a programme of
action which will serve as a catalyst for the development
of our countries and our peoples. Indeed, if given the
chance, the South summit, I dare say, will prove to be an
inspiration for the Millennium Assembly and for a new
compact on human development for the twenty-first
century.
Speaking for Guyana, I wish to reaffirm our
Government's intention to continue working for the
creation of a new global human order aimed at the
eradication of poverty and the establishment of a just and
more humane system of international relations. Conceived
by our late President Cheddi Jagan, whose entire life was
dedicated to empowering the poor and the weak — not
only in his native Guyana, but throughout the world —
the outlines of this new order have been presented at
major international forums, including the World Summit
for Social Development, which was held in 1995 in
Denmark. All 14 heads of Government of the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM), along with other world leaders
and eminent personalities, have declared their full support
for the proposal and their commitment to its widest
promulgation. We will therefore seek at this session to
advance it for further consideration.
Although much is being made of the dawning of the
millennium, it is obviously too much to expect that it will
bring solutions to all of the world's problems. It can
provide, however, an auspicious opportunity for the
international community to reflect upon the past
achievements, its present challenges and future
aspirations. With a firm sense of purpose and resolve, let
us use this occasion to create a brave new world in which
all our peoples may hope to live in peace — free from
fear, poverty and want.