At the outset, I
should like to express warm congratulations to the
President of the General Assembly, His Excellency
Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, a distinguished statesman
and eminent jurist from friendly Portugal.
We also follow with particular appreciation the
actions of the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-
Ghali, whose dedication to the cause of peace and
economic and social development meets with universal
approval.
Three months ago, the celebrations of the fiftieth
anniversary of our Organization were inaugurated at a
meeting of Nobel Prize winners in San Francisco. Fifty
years have passed since the end of the Second World
War, which began with the aggression of the forces of the
Third Reich against Poland in the early hours of 1
September 1939. As a historian and also an eyewitness to
those days, I have a moral right to recall from this
rostrum that it was Poland that put a stop to appeasement,
a policy that was futile then and is futile today, a policy
which, in the long run at any rate, never pays, anywhere.
For Poland, the first victim of the Second World
War, that war lasted the longest: five years, eight months
and eight days. It ended in victory, but a victory which
did not bring the Polish people complete freedom. It was
only 45 years later that we achieved the goal for which
Polish patriots had fought with dedication: a free and
sovereign State in a new, democratic Europe.
5

Already during that most terrible of wars to date,
thought was being given to peace and ways of making it
endure. Mindful of their tragic wartime experiences,
peoples and States sought to rid the world once and for
ever of wars and the sufferings they inflict. That is how the
United Nations was born. From the very start, Poland, a
founding Member, has played an active part in the activities
of the Organization, whose principal purposes were to
preserve and consolidate international peace and security,
ensure peaceful social and economic development and the
right to a decent existence and promote respect for human
rights.
The cold war and East-West bipolarity swiftly dashed
the newborn hopes for the relaxation of tensions and peace
untroubled by political or ideological disputes. Although,
happily, a global nuclear cataclysm has not come to pass,
for which much of the credit is undeniably due to the
United Nations, post-war history abounds with tensions, and
humanity has, more than once, found itself on the brink of
total war. Instead of providing for recovery from the
ravages of war and for human well-being, increasing
resources were spent on maintaining a singular balance —
the balance of terror through the arms race. The world was
divided at Yalta into two hostile camps. Many States, in
Central Europe for instance, ended up in the Eastern bloc
against the will of their people. If I refer to Yalta, it is not
meant as a reproach for a pact that was so heinous for
Poland: it is as a warning against future Yaltas, wherever
they might be concluded or whomever they might threaten.
We want a Europe without political or other divisions, for
their consequences would be the same.
Following the geopolitical transformations that
originated in Poland in the 1980s and proved unstoppable
in the face of the aspirations to freedom of the peoples of
that part of Europe and of Asia, the world has become
infinitely safer. East-West confrontation has disappeared,
for ever, it is hoped, and the terms “East” and “West” have
regained their old, purely geographical connotations. Yet
the world, though no longer bipolar, has not been freed
from conflicts. Hitherto dormant or suppressed, tides of
nationalism have surfaced with renewed vigour, often
fuelled by intolerance, ethnic and religious strife or outright
racism.
Six years after the commencement in 1989 of great
changes in the world political map, the anticipated new
international order has failed to materialize. The United
Nations and all its Members are still actively looking for
effective and equitable answers to the new problems that
have emerged since the end of the cold war. These political
changes present a unique opportunity to build a new
system of peaceful cooperation, not of mere coexistence.
Our desire is to seek a new world order, one that will
ensure full security to all States and provide conditions
for their swift social and economic development, while at
the same time giving all individuals the opportunity to
exercise fully their human rights, to which they are
entitled. Of course, there would not be room for any kind
of intolerance, manifestations of ethnic, religious or racial
hatred, including shameful anti-Semitism.
Poland is aware of, and acknowledges, the
momentous role which the United Nations plays in the
realization of these goals. An Organization founded by 51
States has grown to become a universal structure
embracing almost all the countries of the globe. It is,
however, not only the number of Members that has
changed: its tasks have also kept growing steadily. While
originally the political military question and
decolonization predominated, in time the scope of United
Nations interests widened, and today it would be hard to
identify a single domain where the United Nations system
is not involved. Expectations of the United Nations have
grown likewise, often excessively, since they were not
backed by sufficient political will to provide the
Organization with appropriate instruments, which are
indispensable if it is to live up to these expectations. I
have in mind one of the basic fields of United Nations
activities — conflict prevention and settlement. Here the
United Nations lends itself relatively easily to attack. One
overlooks, however, how much the character of conflicts
now confronting the international community has
changed. Conventional conflicts between States are now
increasingly giving way to internal conflicts, as in
Rwanda, in Somalia and, up to a point, in the former
Yugoslavia. The traditional mediation role of the United
Nations peace-keeping forces, discharged with the consent
of the parties to a conflict, has frequently become
impossible in present-day conditions. In many cases,
United Nations peace-keeping missions come up against
the dilemma of having to depart from the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of a State torn
apart by civil war. Should one remain indifferent and
ignore human suffering in such a situation? It is we, the
States Members of the United Nations, which are often
called upon to answer this question unequivocally, and we
are not always able to do so. Inevitably, this adversely
affects the success of the mission, the blame for which is
all too often and all too easily placed on the United
Nations. One tends to forget that we are the United
Nations.
6

Poland takes the view that when a direct threat is
posed to international peace and security, the United
Nations — if it is to be an efficient instrument of collective
security in accordance with the Charter — must be
equipped to do its job. We can draw up a long list of
conflicts and wars which were brought to an end thanks to
United Nations efforts. Millions of human lives have been
saved, owing to humanitarian relief action organized by the
United Nations — but an equally long list can be produced
of undertakings which ended in failure. The fiftieth
anniversary should, no doubt, prompt critical reflection on
the subject. Defeats and mistakes must not lead to the
abdication of efforts. They should encourage the taking of
steps to reform and remodel what must be changed, and
thus make the United Nations a truly modern Organization,
adapted to new circumstances and measuring up to the
requirements of the period and its challenges.
In today’s interconnected and interdependent world,
even the most powerful nations cannot cope alone with
such global issues as, for example, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, the spread of drugs, hunger
and poverty, the pollution of the environment, acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and increasingly
rampant terrorism — in short, all the ills that are appearing
as we approach the end of the century. Consequently, we
need to bolster the trend towards enhancement of
multilateral institutions, including the United Nations and its
system. It was in this spirit that the President of Poland,
Lech Walesa, spoke at San Francisco last June when he
referred to the Organization’s shortcomings in critical
terms.
Poland is not only playing its full role in this process:
the creation of a new international order is the focal point
of its foreign policy at the subregional, regional and global
levels. Fully sovereign and independent, today’s Poland is
one of the largest and most populous countries in Central
and Eastern Europe. It strives actively to contribute to
ensuring the stability of a region of importance to
Europe — a region that forms a natural geographical,
cultural and economic bridge between Europe’s historically
evolved parts. Hence, the basic task of the foreign policy of
the Republic of Poland is active participation in, and a
creative contribution to, the building of a new Europe —
one without divisions and conflicts, ensuring well-being and
security to all its inhabitants.
In practice, this policy is manifested in unremitting
efforts to integrate Poland into European and Atlantic
structures, in acknowledgement of their role as guarantors
of the security, stability, democracy and economic
development of our continent.
The priority of our foreign policy agenda is entry
into the European Union. The Union had its origins in the
days of the Marshall Plan, to which Poland declared its
accessibility; this was subsequently withdrawn under
pressure from outside. Because of the systemic
differences and the delay in economic and social
development that ensued in the intervening years, the
process of adaptation is bound to be difficult, costly and
protracted. We are, however, convinced that this is not
too high a price to pay for joining a regional organization
which, more than any other in history, has been able to
ensure its members — apart from political integration —
prosperity, a high level of social security and the highest
standards of protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Expansion eastwards by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and the European Union is
synonymous with the consolidation of the zone of
stability in this once conflict-prone region.
In a foreign policy statement in the Polish
Parliament four months ago, I said that Poland was not
pursuing, and would not pursue, two different foreign
policies: one Western and the other Eastern. In other
words, while seeking to join Western European structures,
we attach great importance to cultivating friendly relations
and all-round cooperation both with our immediate and
with our more distant neighbours. We are pursuing
cooperation with these States within the framework of the
existing subregional organizations and are working for its
expansion. We are bound to our neighbours by treaties of
good-neighbourly relations, friendship and cooperation.
We will spare no effort to eradicate as soon as possible
all vestiges of mutual prejudice and any grievances still
harboured by our societies.
Poland attaches major importance to the
consolidation and expansion of such all-European
organizations as the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe,
and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(ECE). We support the OSCE role in resolving armed
conflicts in our part of the world, in cooperation with the
United Nations. We therefore welcome with satisfaction
the Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal established by
the OSCE last May. Our active participation in the work
of the Council of Europe results from our strong belief
that it is of enormous importance in the process of
dissemination, reinforcement and development of
7

democratic institutions and mechanisms for the protection
of human rights on our continent.
Finally, reference must be made to Poland’s
contribution to the work of the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe. Thanks to its long experience in
efforts to overcome the economic divisions that Europe
inherited from the recent past, the ECE has a role to play
in the process of the economic integration of Europe.
At the same time, I wish to declare Poland’s strong
support for the useful activities of the regional commissions
in general. They should be responsible for coordinating, in
each region, the local projects of the United Nations
system, especially its specialized agencies, and become
regional focal points for the promotion of sustainable
growth and human development. The same applies to such
subregional initiatives as the Central European Initiative,
the Council of the Baltic Sea States, and the Central
European Free Trade Association.
While concentrating, understandably enough, on
problems connected with the transformation of our political
and economic systems, Poland is paying due attention to
development processes and trends in the world at large. We
are systematically expanding our economic and political
contacts with nations on other continents. We are
increasingly concerned at the scale of the economic
problems looming in North-South relations. The
development disparities and contrasts in this area call for an
urgent intensification of the efforts of the whole world, and
the more advanced countries in particular. We are not
always in a position to provide developing countries with
aid matching their expectations, but we shall provide it to
the extent we can.
We note with satisfaction the vitality of the Non-
Aligned Movement, which has been cooperating with the
United Nations for many years and which, despite so many
changes, remains unfailingly active on the international
stage. This Movement played a paramount role in bringing
the era of colonialism to an end, has successfully assisted
young nations to secure their rightful place in the world and
is now laying the foundations for a new era of post-cold-
war relations between States, free of global confrontation.
Over the last three years, under the presidency of Indonesia,
the Non-Aligned Movement has ably redirected its priorities
in order to focus its attention on economic development. It
embarked on this task on the basis of fruitful dialogue with
the developed countries and has greatly contributed to
narrowing the gap between the latter and the nations it
represents. We take note in particular of the spectacular
progress made by the Association of South-East Asian
Nations (ASEAN) in terms of development, and we
acknowledge its efforts to extinguish old conflicts and
prevent new ones, to build confidence and to search for
new security formulas. Poland is interested in political
dialogue and economic cooperation with this group of
States, both bilaterally and within a broader Europe-Asia
formula. Central Europe also has many characteristics and
interests in common with the States of Latin America and
their groupings. At the last session of the Economic and
Social Council we gave forceful expression to our
solidarity with Africa. We believe that cooperation with,
and the provision of assistance to, the African continent
is in the best interests of the international community.
For its part, Poland is fully conscious of its
obligations to the world community, as manifested by its
active participation in the work of the United Nations —
an organization where States, large, small and medium-
sized, like Poland, participate democratically, as far as
they can, in a mutual effort to transform the world. We
are prepared to assume additional obligations in regard to
international peace and security. That is why we have put
forward our candidacy for non-permanent membership of
the Security Council in the elections to be held during the
current session of the General Assembly.
Consistent with the obligations embodied in the
Charter of the United Nations, the maintenance of
international peace and security is central to Poland’s
foreign policy. Proof of our commitment to this goal has
been the participation, since the 1950s, of soldiers and
officers of the Polish army in United Nations peace-
keeping operations, and more recently in those launched
under the auspices of the OSCE.
For many years now, Poland has traditionally been
among the 10 States fielding the largest contingents in
United Nations peace-keeping operations, despite its
mounting financial problems due to the growing delays in
the reimbursement of the expenses incurred. Poland is
gravely concerned at the increasingly frequent instances
of disregard for the status of peace-keeping personnel,
such as Blue Helmets being attacked or taken hostage for
use as human shields, a practice of which United Nations
military observers from Poland have also been the
victims. It is for this reason that the entry into force of
the relevant Convention and its rigorous observance are
extremely urgent.
It is also essential to streamline the functioning of
peace-keeping operations. We note with satisfaction the
8

progress already made in this field. However, recent events
in the former Yugoslavia demonstrate the need for further
steps to be taken to ensure the effectiveness of action,
especially in emergency situations. This issue is particularly
topical in view of the multiplication of extremely bloody
and dangerous internal armed conflicts. The evident
impotence of the international community in such situations
is due to the fact that, as numerous examples in the last few
years bear out, international organizations, by their very
nature, are not prepared for active intervention in internal
conflicts. These examples also demonstrate that the only
possible basis for the resolution of an internal conflict is an
accord between the warring parties. We therefore believe
that the primary task of the United Nations is to strive
unflaggingly, as it has often done so effectively in the past,
to bring the parties to a conflict to the negotiating table, to
broker an agreement between them and to supervise its
implementation. The relevance of preventive diplomacy to
both intra-State and international conflicts, and the United
Nations role in that respect, were rightly recalled by my
Australian colleague, Senator Gareth Evans.
Another key facet of international security is the issue
of disarmament. In this area we welcomed, with joy and
relief, the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, arrived at last May
by consensus. We pay tribute to the wisdom and
farsightedness displayed by all participants, without
exception, at the Review and Extension Conference in New
York.
The road that has brought the world to an unbelievable
build-up of nuclear arsenals was long and costly. Today we
realize that embarking on this same road in the opposite
direction, towards disarmament, will be equally long, costly
and complicated. The indefinite extension of the NPT was
an act of enormous significance. The next task — no less
difficult and just as momentous — will be the conclusion
of a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, which should
take place no later than in 1996. Special importance, in our
view, should also be attached to the entry into force and
practical implementation of the Convention on the
prohibition of chemical weapons, an instrument which
Poland ratified last July. In all these matters, Polish
diplomacy has played, and will continue to play, an active
role.
Poland believes that progress in disarmament in the
field of weapons of mass destruction should be paralleled
by a simultaneous and equally tangible effort in the field of
conventional weapons, a category of arms that over the last
half-century has inflicted tens of millions of casualties in
countless regional and internal conflicts. The inescapable
conclusion is that the United Nations needs to go beyond
the limited aims of the United Nations Register of
Conventional Arms and that the problems of conventional
arms control and disarmament have to be put on the
agenda of the Conference on Disarmament. This is
important not only because of the specific nature of the
contemporary conflicts the United Nations has to deal
with, but also because of the need to put an end to the
mounting wave of internal and international terrorism in
an increasing number of countries. There can be no doubt
that terrorism and organized crime in general, as well as
illegal traffic in radioactive materials and drugs, represent
today a serious threat to security. Determined action is
therefore needed. Its success will depend on broad
international cooperation within the United Nations
system — I refer to the Vienna institutions — as well as
outside the United Nations system.
Economic development is an extremely important
and, in recent years, increasingly significant sphere of
activity of the organs of the United Nations system.
Economic development problems, together with social
issues, have been the subject of a number of major
international conferences. The agendas of conferences
already held and those of the ones to be convened in the
next two years address virtually all development-related
problems. What is now indispensable is to concentrate
efforts on the conscientious and coordinated
implementation of their decisions, a matter of which
account should also be taken in the planned reform of the
United Nations system.
We appreciate the incipient changes that are
appearing in the attitude of the Bretton Woods institutions
with regard to the question of the social dimension of
development processes, especially the elimination of
poverty and unemployment. These issues clearly stood out
at the Copenhagen social summit and at the session of the
Economic and Social Council held in Geneva earlier this
year. This bolsters the hope that the efforts of the poorer
countries to cope with the contingencies of socio-
economic development will obtain external financial
support. We do not share the view that developing
countries or, for that matter, nations that, like Poland, are
in the throes of transformation, are contributing to
unemployment in the more developed parts of the world.
We do not accept the argument that trade with low-wage
countries might threaten the economic stability of such
developed countries. According to the findings of the
latest studies by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, the less-developed
9

countries represent, first and foremost, new markets that are
of interest to multinational corporations. Let me note in this
connection that Poland has been recently classified as one
of the world’s 10 biggest emerging markets.
Specific opportunities have also been created by the
conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the establishment of
the World Trade Organization. In the short term, however,
the liberalization of world trade could be too great a
challenge to the weakest partners, especially in Africa. We
are in favour of safety-net arrangements for countries in
this category.
We also perceive a development paradox of our times:
cut-backs in agricultural production in some parts of the
world because of excessive stocks of food and for purposes
of checking falling prices are paralleled by the existence of
endemic famine areas in other parts of the world. In an
interdependent world such as ours, there is something
baffling in this situation. The United Nations should be the
forum in which to address this difficult and conscience-
troubling problem. The solution is not simply one of
redistribution. The crux of the matter lies in helping these
countries to help themselves by stimulating their capacity
for self-reliance instead of perpetuating their dependence.
Lastly, the third area crucial to the well-being of
future generations, to which Poland attaches particular
importance, is the question of human rights. Today, six
years into the process of democratic change, Poland can
pride itself on having a legal system which meets the most
rigorous international standards in the field of respect for
and comprehensive protection of human rights.
Poland has not confined itself to taking care of internal
problems in that regard. In the past few years it has been
pursuing wide-ranging activities in the United Nations
organs concerned with human rights and the development
of international mechanisms for their protection.
Undoubtedly, in this field the Vienna Human Rights
Conference of 1993 was a landmark event. Polish
diplomacy was extremely active both at the preparatory
stage and in the course of the Conference. From the outset
we strongly endorsed the establishment of the Office of
High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was one of
the principal achievements of the Vienna Conference. Since
the appointment of Ambassador Ayala Lasso to this
important post we have given him our full cooperation and
support.
Of its very nature, the United Nations does not have
the means to force either States or armed groupings to
respect the rights of citizens and to comply with
international obligations in this field. Violations of
humanitarian law and the laws of war are rife. The timid
response to the systematic reports by the Human Rights
Commission’s Special Rapporteur, the former Polish
Prime Minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, of drastic violations
of human rights in the former Yugoslavia resulted in his
resignation from his mission. We note with satisfaction
statements from this rostrum recognizing the significance
of his endeavours.
The upgrading of the status of human rights within
the structure of United Nations organs, the General
Assembly included, is essential. The basic tasks of our
Organization in this field should be the promotion of
permanent international dialogue on the protection of
human rights, the development of mechanisms for
overseeing compliance with international obligations and
the increase of technical assistance by rich and
experienced nations to countries which lack the necessary
resources. Appropriate funds for this purpose should be
made available to the High Commissioner and the Centre
for Human Rights in Geneva.
Ever since the foundation of the United Nations 50
years ago the tasks facing the Organization have grown in
number and complexity. The political and economic
environment in which these tasks have to be coped with
also keeps changing, as demonstrated by the decisions of
the latest major Conferences — in Cairo, Copenhagen and
Beijing. That calls for the continuous adaptation of the
organizational structures and procedures to new tasks and
changing circumstances. It is imperative to enhance the
methods of cooperation between the United Nations and
regional organizations like the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), the Organization of American
States (OAS) and the Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC). Equally important is the effort further
to develop the system of international law so that it can
regulate more adequately and with greater precision the
rights and obligations of its subjects in the ever growing
number of areas of their mutual relations. The importance
of these problems, United Nations reform included, has
not escaped the attention of our distinguished Secretary-
General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
The reform of the United Nations is therefore a
pressing task. It is necessary in respect of the principal
organs, the Security Council and the Economic and Social
Council in the first place, and the countless subsidiary
bodies. Poland appreciates the results of efforts made so
10

far to enhance the work of the Security Council. As a
result, we have a Council which is both more efficient and
more than ever responsive to the need for greater
transparency in its proceedings. Poland wishes to express its
support for the acceleration of steps aimed at an appropriate
expansion of the Council’s composition, to render it more
representative without detriment to its effectiveness. The
reform of the Organization must aim at upgrading its
efficiency and remedying its financial situation, while
keeping intact the basic principle of the sovereign equality
of all its Members. However, the most important issue is
efficiency, without forgetting that, as an intergovernmental
Organization, the basic task of the United Nations is to
cement partner-like cooperation between its Members, and
recalling that it can act only on their authority. The ultimate
success of the reform will be the best contribution we can
make to the observance of the fiftieth anniversary of the
Organization.
Let me add the voice of Poland to all those statements
which, on the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations,
conveyed from this rostrum unequivocal assurances of
confidence in the future of our Organization and in its
ability to cope with the challenges that face us on the
threshold of the twenty-first century. For its part, Poland is
ready to participate in these efforts for the sake of future
generations so that, in contrast to my own, they will never
experience war, be it hot or cold, and so that they can live
in a world founded on principles of cooperation, good-
neighbourly relations and mutual trust.


Let me at the outset
extend to Mr. Freitas do Amaral of Portugal the sincere
good wishes of the Government and people of Sri Lanka on
his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at
this its historic fiftieth session. We are privileged to have
him guide its deliberations. My delegation offers him the
same full cooperation that we extended to all his
predecessors in that high office.
Our gratitude is due Mr. Amara Essy of Côte d’Ivoire,
who presided over the forty-ninth session with great skill
and wisdom.
When I addressed the Assembly last year, I reported
that the people of Sri Lanka had secured an electoral
victory for
“moderation, tolerance and unity” (Official Records of
the General Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Plenary
Meetings, 5th meeting, p. 23)
in a society that had passed through harrowing times. I
detailed the initiatives taken by the Government of
President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga,
supported by a number of political parties, including those
of the two principal minority communities, to resolve
outstanding ethnic and other disputes through a bold
process of political negotiation. That process was
launched, but later encountered set-backs, primarily
because one of the groups with which the Government
had commenced talks abruptly returned to violence and
terrorism, rejecting the peaceful option to which the rest
of the country is committed. The Government has been
constrained to take unavoidable reactive military measures
to safeguard the lives, the security and the welfare of
those who are threatened by the terrorist group. So long
as they aim at our leaders the threat of assassination, we
cannot believe that their professions of peace are sincere.
We continue to fulfil our obligations to all our
citizens, including those trapped in the north of the
country. Supplies of food and other essential requirements
are being made available by the Government and
delivered through the International Committee of the Red
Cross to our citizens in affected areas. This is an
exceptional exercise which the late James Grant of the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) described as
uniquely humanitarian in a conflict situation.
We are deeply troubled and concerned about the
situation in which the children of the north and east of
our country are placed. That mankind owes to the child
the best it has to give is universally accepted. Yet we are
appalled that in their desperation the militants, spurning
the entreaties of distraught parents, have descended to
conscripting children as young in age as 10 years to wage
war and have even assigned them to suicide missions. A
recent military encounter in north-eastern Sri Lanka
revealed grim evidence confirming our worst fears. Most
of the lives sacrificed by the leadership of the militants
were teenagers barely able to carry arms, let alone
understand the twisted mono-ethnic separatist ideology
they have been indoctrinated to defend. In truth, it is the
militants who must bear the ultimate responsibility for
civilian casualties in this conflict. One of the challenges
of peace that Sri Lanka will soon have to face is the need
to overcome the terrible legacy of the subverted and
distorted young minds, of the broken, bereft families and
interrupted lives that the conflict will leave behind.
All this has only increased my Government’s
determination to fulfil an imperative mandate from the
people, to rebuild a free society in our Republic which is
23

based on tolerance and understanding and in which all
communities throughout the nation could live in harmony
and dignity in accordance with the principles of democratic
governance. The Government has accordingly presented
comprehensive proposals, daring in their scope and reach,
for the devolution of power to regional units. True to our
long-established democratic tradition, a free-ranging
national debate among Sri Lankans is proceeding on these
proposals. The eventual implementation of agreed proposals
will require compliance with the procedures appropriate for
the amendment of our Constitution, including a two-thirds
majority in Parliament and a national referendum.
To help further enhance conditions of confidence for
the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
my Government has presented legislation in Parliament to
establish a Human Rights Commission in Sri Lanka. The
Commission will consist of members chosen from among
persons with knowledge and experience in the field of
human rights. They will be appointed on the
recommendation of a Constitutional Council — an
independent and widely representative body reflecting all
shades of political opinion. The proposed Commission will
have monitoring functions in respect of executive and
administrative practices as well as investigative functions to
inquire into any infringement of fundamental rights. It will
also have advisory and other functions, inter alia, to ensure
that laws and administrative practices accord with
international human-rights norms and standards and to
facilitate inexpensive access to remedial relief. Sri Lanka
has consistently supported United Nations initiatives for
national institution-building in the field of human rights.
It has been a source of major encouragement to us that
the international community has supported the efforts of the
Government of Sri Lanka in the pursuit of peace. While the
eventual solution of our problems lies essentially in our
own hands and through mechanisms of our own devising,
we sincerely appreciate the interest and support of the
international community. It is in this context that I have
volunteered today to brief the Assembly on the situation in
Sri Lanka.
The significance of this session of the United Nations
General Assembly extends well beyond the fact that it
commemorates 50 years in the life of the Organization.
International life is in constant flux. No era is wholly static.
Yet the last decade or so has seen radical changes affecting
virtually every aspect of life on this planet. Not all of such
changes have been welcome. Not all of the changes have
reached their logical, or indeed illogical, conclusion.
The acclaimed transformation in South Africa has
been a blessed exception. Institutionalized racism in its
grosser forms has at last been vanquished. The South
African experience has demonstrated the power of
tolerance, understanding and inspired leadership to wear
down the brutal, evil legacies of the past. It has also
shown that there is a capacity for change in human
attitudes once considered unthinkable. Racism, however,
has continued in subtler forms elsewhere in the world.
The international community must continue to be vigilant.
That ugly phenomenon must never be tolerated, wherever
it occurs and whatever its manifestations.
Sri Lanka feels deeply that the African continent
needs the wholehearted and vigorous support of the
international community to overcome the obstacles to
development and growth in this vital region of the world.
The strengthening and utilization of the capacities and
resources of Africa, identified by the African countries
themselves and the Economic Commission for Africa, and
concerted action to implement the Programme of Action
for the Least-Developed Countries are urgently called for.
The Middle East is the cradle of three of the world’s
great religions. Yet historical prejudices have weighed
down the quest for peace. Resort to violence and
terrorism, the expropriation of land and the development
of illegal settlements have conspired to impede the
momentum for peace. Sri Lanka supports the continuation
of the peace process in the Middle East, the realization of
the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people
and the establishment of conditions of peace and stability
for all States in the region which would enable them to
develop within secure boundaries. Commitments made on
interim agreements towards this objective, as Chairman
Arafat of Palestine stated last Thursday, must be precise,
honest and mutual.
In Bosnia, Sri Lanka welcomes the fact that the
parties concerned have found it possible to commence
peace negotiations although the guns have yet to be
finally silenced. We feel deeply for, and share the sorrow
of, those who mourn for lives lost, lives disrupted in the
affected communities. We hope that a viable settlement
acceptable to all will soon be concluded. I had occasion
recently, speaking in the Parliament of Sri Lanka, to
condemn unreservedly the inhumane and cruel treatment
that has been inflicted upon the Muslims in Bosnia. These
and other atrocities committed in Bosnia have been fully
documented by the United Nations rapporteurs and
humanitarian agencies and need to be condemned by the
international community.
24

The role of the United Nations in that conflict has
received special focus as the Organization, in this its fiftieth
year, undergoes a period of introspection. The situation in
Bosnia has been an unusually complex one in which the
United Nations has had to deal with developments without
precedent in the Organization’s peace-keeping history. In
terms of Article 17 of the United Nations Charter, peace-
keeping is the collective financial responsibility of all
States. A healthy, albeit controversial, debate has proceeded
in the United Nations on peace-keeping and other related
issues. The debate has made abundantly clear that United
Nations intervention or involvement in any situation can
expect to be successful only if certain basic considerations
are heeded. First, any intervention must enjoy the general
support and confidence of the international community and
not be promoted merely to satisfy the political exigencies
and partisan objectives of members of the Security Council
or other powerful States. Secondly, in any intervention the
consent of the countries in conflict must be clearly
obtained. Finally, such politico-military operations must
neither dominate United Nations activity nor be its principal
financial liability. They must certainly not be carried out to
the detriment of the pressing development priorities of the
United Nations.
In “An Agenda for Peace” the Secretary-General has
sought to evaluate manifold aspects of contemporary peace
and security, not merely the question of peace-keeping
operations. This evaluation has had a continuous focus in
the General Assembly, in the Security Council, in other
forums such as the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries as
well as in national debate since the Secretary-General’s
initial report was presented in 1992. The cardinal aspect of
“An Agenda for Peace” is the conviction that it is clearly
better to prevent conflicts through heeding early warnings
and encouraging quiet diplomacy rather than through
launching major politico-military ventures to settle conflicts
after they have erupted.
While economic factors have not always been the
cause of conflict, we very much agree with the Secretary-
General that the foundations for peace lie primarily in the
realm of economic and social development.
The 1990s have often been described as a period of
economic globalization, considering the increasing
interdependence among States, greater international
integration and flow of goods, services, capital and markets,
as well as a more widespread and rapid dissemination of
information and ideas through technological advancements
in communications. Globalization is sometimes over-
simplified as a phenomenon favourable to the emancipation
of international economic activity. It is true that most
economies which had been constricted or centrally
controlled have now been liberalized and have, as it were,
plugged in to the global economy. Yet, in the process,
many developing countries have had to make painful
structural adjustments in their economies at heavy cost to
vulnerable sections of their populations. If there is greater
overall international economic activity, it is also true that
for many developing countries, despite their best efforts,
the economic outlook has not been encouraging. The
recent Conference of non-aligned countries held at Jakarta
issued a renewed call for a new orientation between
developed and developing countries whereby constructive
dialogue and partnership were emphasized, based on a
mutuality of interest and benefit, genuine interdependence
and shared responsibility.
A major thrust of this approach has been to work out
new practical aspects of international development
cooperation which would embrace developed as well as
developing countries, the more secure economies as well
as those that are more vulnerable. The final communiqué
issued earlier this year in Halifax, at the Summit of the
seven major industrialized countries, proclaimed their
willingness to cooperate with others to develop a new
approach to international cooperation and to define the
particular contribution expected of the United Nations
system to develop such an approach. A vital aspect of this
exercise should be the enhancement of cooperation
between the United Nations system and the Bretton
Woods institutions.
Calls made earlier for a restructuring of international
economic relations and a North-South dialogue have
floundered in a sea of slogans. But we must realize that
global interdependence has made international cooperation
an imperative, not a slogan. The United Nations must
assert its part in a more effective new multilateralism.
Almost two decades ago Sri Lanka adopted a liberal
free-market economy in order to accelerate economic
growth. My Government is taking steps to privatize State-
controlled enterprises, in particular utilities and services
provided by the Government, and to encourage foreign
investment. We intend to benefit from the opportunities
arising from the globalization of economic activity.
A number of world conferences have recently been
held, covering a series of generic issues which have a
direct bearing on the lives of people the world over.
These have demonstrated both the promise and the
paucity of international cooperation. Agenda 21, produced
25

by the Rio Conference on Environment and Development,
is yet to be fully operationalized due to the lack of
necessary resources. Last year the International Conference
on Population and Development affirmed the central role of
the human being in all development and population
activities. The World Summit for Social Development, held
in March this year in Copenhagen, sought to promote
concerted international action to deal with a crucial trio of
contemporary concerns: poverty, unemployment and the
disintegration of society. The World Conference on
Women, in Beijing last month, dealt with a range of
issues — political, social, religious and economic —
affecting women and adopted a Platform for Action to
empower women.
All these conferences have emphasized that
responsibility for major global problems needs to be shared
and that action to deal with them needs to be taken in
concert. Regrettably, if expectations have been great,
resources for their realization have been meagre. The
political determination necessary to transform commitments
into action still appears far less than adequate.
Despite the absence of optimal international
cooperation in certain areas, some regional activities have
made good progress. In our own region, the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) celebrates
its tenth anniversary this year. The SAARC Preferential
Trade Arrangement has made much headway and is
expected to enter into force this year. We look to the future
confident of consolidating our gains in a South Asian free-
trade arrangement. Sri Lanka, together with our South
Asian partners, will explore all avenues to seek and build
on common ground and optimize regional cooperation in
areas of mutual interest. Indeed, cooperation within, as well
as between, regions offers much scope for economic
progress and equitable sharing of global wealth. We look
forward to greater interregional cooperation to advance this
process.
Sri Lanka was privileged to have served the Review
and Extension Conference on the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to facilitate
the adoption of a package of decisions without resort to a
vote. While the outcome of the Conference has been widely
hailed, it is vital also to emphasize the need for the
establishment of a comprehensive disarmament regime to
meet the security concerns of all countries, including the
non-nuclear-weapon States, through the realization of
commitments undertaken under the Treaty and the decisions
taken at the 1995 Conference by the nuclear-weapon States.
These commitments include the conclusion of a
comprehensive test-ban Treaty, legally binding assurances
to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of
use of nuclear weapons, the unimpeded,
non-discriminatory transfer of nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes and the eventual elimination of all
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction
throughout the world.
We have expressed our deep disappointment and
concern over the resumption of nuclear testing by some
nuclear Powers, which is contrary to the undertakings of
utmost restraint entered into at the NPT Conference. We
therefore urge that expeditious negotiations be conducted
on a comprehensive test-ban treaty, with a view to
concluding it in 1996. In this regard, we are happy to
support President Clinton’s initiative to place the Geneva
negotiations on a comprehensive test-ban treaty on a
faster track in order to achieve a zero-yield test-ban treaty
by 1996. We also note the recent assurance in this respect
given by President Chirac of France.
The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and
zones of peace is an essential part of regional security.
The non-aligned countries, including Sri Lanka, have
sought to establish conditions of peace, security and
stability in the Indian Ocean region. The United Nations
Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, taking into
account current realities, has been considering new,
alternative approaches to ensuring peace and security in
this vital but volatile region of the world. Sri Lanka, as
Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, has been in
consultation with those permanent members of the
Security Council that have not been participating in the
Committee’s work in order to re-enlist their active
participation and give fresh impetus to the process of
strengthening cooperation in the Indian Ocean region,
including in respect of non-military aspects of security.
Sri Lanka’s initiative for Indian Ocean Marine
Affairs Cooperation (IOMAC) has focused on the
development of international cooperation in marine affairs
in the economic, scientific and technical fields. The recent
Mauritius and Perth initiatives on the Indian Ocean have
recognized IOMAC’s pioneering effort in helping to
widen cooperation in the marine sector. The process for
the formalization of IOMAC through the ratification of
the 1990 Arusha Agreement on the Organization for
Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Cooperation is being further
accelerated in order to provide an effective mechanism for
intensifying cooperation, in keeping with the growing
aspirations of the countries of the region.
26

The fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations has
spawned a variety of studies on the future of the
Organization, initiated within as well as outside the United
Nations. Working groups of the General Assembly have
been busy during recent sessions, studying the financial
situation of the Organization, development issues, the
Security Council, the Agenda for Peace and other aspects
of the United Nations.
The issues are complex. Progress is slow. Decisions
are few. A resolution on the strengthening of the United
Nations system, patiently negotiated on the initiative of the
President of the forty-ninth session of the General
Assembly, was adopted by consensus. There is much to
support a coordinated, rational and informed examination of
recommendations which seek to strengthen the United
Nations and render it a more effective and efficient
Organization. A piecemeal approach may not be an
effective one, given the complexity of the individual issues
involved as well as their interrelationship. We look forward
to further work on this initiative next year.
The Security Council has perhaps been the single most
contentious United Nations organ under scrutiny. Sri
Lanka’s own position is that in many respects the Council
still reflects power realities that prevailed 50 years ago.
There can be no warrant for the perpetuation of exclusive
rights without accommodation of other relevant
considerations. A substantial increase in the membership of
the United Nations, particularly from among developing
counties, needs to be more equitably reflected in the
composition of the Council as well. Furthermore, there are
reasons, at least as compelling as those proclaimed 50 years
ago to justify the status conferred at that time on the
Council’s five permanent members, to now advance the
claims of other States that aspire to join the five. These
new aspirants to permanent-member status include,
reasonably and justifiably in our view, non-aligned
countries as well. Regrettably, eligibility claims for
membership in the Council continue to be made on
assumptions of power, military or economic, and its global
or regional projection. But this vitiates basic principles
underlying democratic representation and considerations of
justice and equity. If regional criteria are considered, then,
Asia, Africa and Latin America are either unrepresented or
severely under-represented in the present Council. Finally,
the veto power, given its untrammelled character and its
association with the possession of nuclear weapons, needs,
in our opinion, careful, sober review.
The Security Council’s methods of work have in the
recent past been subject to welcome improvement,
particularly in permitting a better exchange of views
between Council members and others. There is, however,
much more that needs to be done to make the Security
Council truly accessible, democratic and responsive to
Member States of the United Nations, on whose behalf
the Council is meant to act in accordance with Charter
principles. A single example relating to the imposition
and implementation of sanctions would suffice to indicate
the gap between principle and practice. Situations in
which sanctions are imposed vary greatly and no uniform
rules are applicable. Sanctions cannot be applied with
surgical precision to impact exclusively on those at whom
they are aimed. Sanctions can thus hurt innocent civilians,
affect entire economies and, as the Council itself
acknowledges, impact adversely on third countries that are
in no way involved in the transgressions of the regime
against which sanctions are imposed. Yet decisions by the
Council on the imposition of sanctions are not based on
prior consultations with the countries concerned, to assess
carefully the true impact, extent and reach of such
extreme measures. As sanctions are mandatory, all
countries are bound to implement them even when they
have had no part in the decisions leading to them. In his
“Supplement to An Agenda for Peace'”, the Secretary-
General has made a number of useful recommendations
relating to the serious problems encountered in the
implementation of sanctions. The non-aligned countries
have studied these proposals and we await further developments.
Later this month, the United Nations will mark its
fiftieth anniversary with a special commemorative
meeting. Although the occasion will, by its very nature,
embody the highest possible political commitment made
by the international community to the United Nations, it
must not be seen purely as an opportunity for the
Organization to garner a harvest of tributes. Much ails the
Organization. Nevertheless, it is Sri Lanka’s firm
conviction that the membership of the United Nations has
within it the means to reinvest in the Organization all it
requires to fulfil the principles of the Charter. This would
require much more than a symbolic declaration of
commitment by each Member State. We owe it to the
people we represent to strive diligently in the years to
come to make this Organization truly a place where the
highest aspirations of humanity can be fulfilled.
Tentative programme of work


Allow me first of all to
congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of
the fiftieth session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Your election is a clear recognition of the high esteem your
country justly enjoys as an important link between different
cultures and continents. This in turn has enabled Portugal
to become an active partner of those countries, like
Bulgaria, that are progressing towards democracy and a
market economy within a united Europe.
In today’s world of profound change the fiftieth
anniversary of the United Nations is of significance above
all as a vantage point from which to try to develop a
vision for the future.
Situated at the historical crossroads of nations and
civilizations, Bulgaria today is seeking both to contribute
to the successful redefinition of the United Nations role
in the world of tomorrow and to ensure its own national
security and wellbeing. The role of the United Nations
should be above all to build upon the enhanced capacity
of the Organization in three crucial spheres of its
activities, namely, conflict settlement and peace-keeping,
post-conflict peace-building, and the laying of durable
foundations for lasting peace.
Today we all recognize the emergence of a great
number of new challenges to peace and security marked
by extraordinary diversity and complexity. The conflict
still raging in the former Yugoslavia has been a traumatic
test of the key United Nations responsibility for conflict
settlement and peace-keeping. The disappointments in this
regard have been many and profound; yet we should all
face up to the simple truth that our Organization can be
only as effective as a guarantor of peace as we Member
countries wish and permit it to be.
Bulgaria has from the outset strictly adhered to
policies supporting a peaceful settlement under United
Nations auspices. Unilaterally, it has adopted and
consistently abided by the principle of non-interference in
the conflict. It has chosen not to become involved, either

directly or indirectly, in any type of military activities on
the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including
participation in United Nations peace-keeping. We have
called upon the other countries in the region to exercise the
same restraint. On the other hand, throughout the conflict
Bulgaria has supported every international initiative aimed
at achieving a peaceful, balanced, just and comprehensive
solution.
In keeping with its obligations under the United
Nations Charter and as a means of restarting negotiations,
Bulgaria has consistently implemented the international
sanctions regime. This step was taken on the basis of a
national consensus that, despite the heavy burden such
sanctions created for Bulgaria, it was our duty to implement
them as a dependable member of the international
community.
Yet Bulgaria has sustained debilitating losses as a
result of the sanctions. Over the past few years, we have
repeatedly drawn attention to this problem, both as it
concerns Bulgaria and as it concerns cooperation with other
affected States. The sanction-induced losses so far amount
to well over 25 per cent of Bulgaria’s estimated gross
domestic product for 1995. This has made Bulgaria by far
the country most seriously affected.
Bulgaria’s policies favouring a peaceful outcome have
helped to establish it as a stabilizing factor in a most deeply
troubled region of Europe. At the same time, we feel that
such recognition also contributes to enhancing the peace-
making potential of the United Nations itself. Positive
interaction between the policies of individual Member
States and the decisions and measures of the world
Organization is the decisive factor in enhancing the latter’s
key mission, that of helping to settle conflicts and keep the
peace.
However, Bulgaria’s experience also shows that in
order to discharge this mission successfully in the future the
United Nations needs carefully to rethink its main peace-
keeping instruments, such as economic sanctions and peace-
keeping missions.
In areas outside its immediate vicinity Bulgaria has in
recent years contributed ground forces and civilian and
police observers. In the operation in Cambodia, generally
considered a success, several young Bulgarians lost their
lives. We sympathize with other countries that have
sustained human losses in subsequent missions, including
the latest in the former Yugoslavia. We therefore strongly
support the view that there is a need to reform and improve
the ways in which such missions are planned and
executed, with priority given to enhancing the safety of
United Nations personnel.
Recently, mediation between parties to a given
conflict has been successfully utilized in the discharge of
United Nations conflict-settlement missions. In this
context, we welcome the agreement reached between
neighbouring Greece and the Republic of Macedonia as
a most important step towards lessening tensions in the
whole of southeastern Europe.
A further major contribution in this regard should be
active United Nations support for and collaboration in
bringing to a successful conclusion the present intensive
efforts to attain peace in Bosnia. Bulgaria welcomes the
United States peace initiative and the efforts to implement
it in close cooperation with the United Nations and the
countries in the Contact Group. This has opened up real
possibilities for a negotiated settlement of the conflict.
Experience derived from the Yugoslav crisis
highlights the importance of another crucial United
Nations function, namely, post-conflict peace-building.
Today, it is obvious that although negotiations have not
yet achieved a final settlement there is a need to begin to
address the problems of post-conflict peace-building
without delay.
One set of such problems concerns the reduction of
the levels of armaments and armed forces. It is clear that
conflict settlement would be pointless were it not
accompanied by a set of actions designed to remove the
sources of real or potential security threats in the area.
Thus, in the arms-control field Bulgaria shares the
view that the establishment of a future harmonized arms-
control regime in Europe should combine measures of
both a pan-European and a regional character. Such
measures should be based on the understanding that
security must be indivisible and that any disproportionate
concentration of armaments, in particular when coupled
with a lack of control mechanisms, undermines security
and stability. Therefore, the establishment of a credible
system of arms control and confidence- and security-
building measures for the territory of the former
Yugoslavia, as part of and in line with the pan-European
regimes, must be an essential part of a comprehensive
post-war settlement. Relevant international bodies such as
the United Nations and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) should play a very
important role in this respect. The main objective should
2

be to attain levels of armaments that will preclude once and
for all any temptation to use force.
The second set of peace-building measures concerns
post-conflict economic reconstruction and stabilization.
Important work has been done at the United Nations
in the past several years for developing an integrated
approach to successfully implementing reconstruction
programmes. Such an approach should encompass four
interrelated aspects: strategic issues of reconstruction, needs
and capabilities, post-conflict reconstruction framework and
mobilization of resources.
Today plans for reconstruction are being laid for parts
of the conflict area in the former Yugoslavia. Bulgaria is
particularly well placed to contribute to such plans. This is
so for a number of reasons: first, its long-standing
relationship with the countries in and around the conflict
area and its consistent policies in favour of a balanced and
durable political settlement; secondly, because of the
experience and know-how of Bulgarian companies with a
long record of practical work in the area; thirdly, acquired
knowledge and expertise in working with international
financial institutions in implementing programmes for
reconstruction and development. For all these reasons,
Bulgaria could be an important factor contributing to the
success of any reconstruction effort in the area.
The emerging pattern of structured coordination
between various organizations within and outside the United
Nations system provides guidelines and a very useful
example to follow. It encourages our own thinking as we
start exploring practical and institutional possibilities for
contributing to the concerted international efforts in this
respect.
At the same time, Bulgaria has every reason to expect
also to receive a part of the international post-conflict
assistance for the region. Effectively building the peace in
the region requires that neighbouring countries that bore the
brunt of sanctions and have sustained inordinate losses be
included on a priority basis in the list of recipients of
international assistance.
Bulgaria’s concerns over the subject of sanctions have
already become well known. We have formulated them in
extenso on several occasions. In fact, the international
community and, in particular, the General Assembly have
recognized the right and the need to include non-target third
countries in programmes for reconstruction and
development. At its two previous sessions, on Bulgarian
initiatives, the General Assembly adopted by consensus
two resolutions on this set of issues. This year again, my
delegation intends to submit a corresponding draft
resolution which I hope will receive universal support.
At this point, I cannot but underline the findings and
recommendations contained in the report (A/50/60) of the
Secretary-General entitled “Supplement to An Agenda for
Peace” and, in particular, his conclusion that the price of
sanctions implementation should be borne equally by all
Member States and not only by those who have had the
misfortune of being neighbours or important economic
partners of a sanctions target country. I would like to take
this opportunity to commend especially the efforts of His
Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in this particularly
important field of United Nations activities.
It is our view that, as a result of work already done,
today there exists a significant scope of agreement on the
ways and means for overcoming the specific economic
problems confronting the affected States, as reflected in
part IV of resolution 47/120 and resolutions 48/210 and
49/21 A of the General Assembly. Bulgaria is
participating, and will continue to do so, in an effort to
help towards the successful completion of the discussion
on these issues in the United Nations.
Together with conflict settlement and post-conflict
peace-building, a third, parallel line of action should be
undertaken without delay. It should focus on laying
durable foundations for lasting peace through economic
and social development. The task of achieving durable
stability and security regarding peace and economic
development has always been of particular relevance in
South-Eastern Europe. It has become all the more so in
the light of evolving European integration.
In order to boost such development and lasting
stability, there is an urgent need for concerted efforts by
the international organizations and specialized agencies
within the United Nations system, coupled with broader
and more intensive cooperation at a regional level. It is
doubtless necessary to avoid overlapping and duplication.
Yet a mechanism must be put in place for effectively
coordinating programmes for early implementation of
achievable objectives.
The Ministerial Conference on environment for
Europe, which is going to be held in Sofia the last week
of this October, is a particularly apt example of this
approach. Another initiative along these lines is the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
3

(OSCE) seminar on the role of trans-European
infrastructure for stability and cooperation in the Black Sea
region, which will also take place in Sofia, a month later.
It will be dealing with priority projects for developing
regional transport, telecommunications and energy
infrastructure as factors both for economic growth and for
lasting stability and peace in the area.
The above forums could provide valuable inputs for
the work undertaken within the European Union with the
aim of elaborating a comprehensive regional strategy for
South-Eastern Europe. Such a strategy could be based on
the approach embodied in the measures accompanying the
Pact on Stability in Europe, put forward at the time by the
Union. Cooperation at the subregional level may also prove
to be a factor of significant practical importance in this
context.
For its part, Bulgaria, in the course of the past several
months, has attempted to develop thinking and proposals
for regional stability, security and cooperation which could
interact with initiatives and programmes developed by
European and international institutions and major world
partners. It is our belief that developing the economic
dimensions of regional security will greatly favour the
overcoming of local tensions rooted in the past, as well as
the full-fledged implementation of the basic principles of
relations between States under the Helsinki Act and the
Paris Charter.
With a view to promoting such regional cooperation,
I would like to state from this lofty rostrum that Bulgaria
is ready to host a gathering of interested Central and South-
Eastern European States at the governmental level in the
course of 1996. Given careful preparation and the support
of the international community, such a high-level meeting
could become a major step towards lasting security and
stability in a historically much-troubled part of Europe.
The parameters of the new international system are
still taking shape today. What is positive is that in the days
of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations the
international community is looking for pragmatic and
responsible approaches to lend new meaning to the
Organization’s mission. The discussion of the possibilities
of and prospects for United Nations restructuring can draw
on the accumulated wealth of experience and take
advantage of the prevailing spirit of cooperation. Let us
make the best possible use of them and together venture
into the new century stronger, wiser and more united.


May I first
congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency
in this most important year for the United Nations.
It is nearly half a century since the General Assembly
of the United Nations first met, in London. King George VI
told the visiting representatives of 50 countries that no more
important meeting had ever taken place there. The founders
of the United Nations had taken on themselves a heavy
responsibility and a noble work.
Today we must pay tribute to those founders and
their efforts. Earlier models of collective security had
soon crumbled. The League of Nations collapsed after
less than two decades. The United Nations has proved
more durable. Over 50 years it has helped spread peace
in place of war. It has worked to push back hunger and
disease and to advance democracy and human rights.
Without the United Nations we would have a bleaker
world.
I am delighted to add Britain’s voice to these
celebrations at the fiftieth session of the General
Assembly. After five decades it is timely to recall what
the United Nations has achieved. At the start of a new
half-century it is right to weigh the lessons of past
experience.
The United Nations is a means to an end. Its value
lies not simply in the shared principles and ambitions
enshrined in the Charter, but in practical results. Its
successes are real.
The United Nations has been a force for peace.
From Korea in the 1950s to Kuwait in the 1990s, it has
helped check and reverse the tides of aggression. In the
Near East and Cyprus, United Nations troops have
worked for decades to sustain a measure of stability. In
Cambodia the United Nations mounted its most complex
operation ever to rebuild a country shattered by 13 years
of war. In Mozambique United Nations peace-keepers
have helped demobilize 100,000 combatants, allowing
democratic elections and the creation of a unified army.
The United Nations has been a source of relief from
suffering. Since 1951 the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has provided
food, shelter, medicine and education for over 30 million
refugees. United Nations programmes have immunized 80
per cent of the world’s children against disease. United
Nations sanitation and nutrition projects have halved child
mortality in developing countries.
The United Nations has been a motor for democracy
and sustainable development. It has given electoral help
to over 40 countries. Its charters and covenants set
international standards of human rights. It has brokered
agreements to conserve world forests and fish stocks.
9

The United Nations has done good work for five
decades. My country, the United Kingdom, has been at its
heart from the start. From the drafting of the Charter, as the
first host, in London, of the General Assembly and of the
Security Council, we have been a staunch supporter of the
United Nations. From the first stirrings of environmental
concern in the 1960s, to the fight against AIDS since the
1980s, through to management innovation and financial
reform in the 1990s, Britain has been a driving force for the
changing agenda of the United Nations. In 1947 we were
a party to the first case to come before the International
Court of Justice. This year a British judge became the
Court’s first ever woman member.
Even before the end of the cold war, British forces
had served the United Nations cause for decades. For 30
years the United Nations operation in Cyprus has depended
on British troops and logistics. In the last five years British
forces have served in Kuwait, Cambodia, Rwanda, Angola,
Georgia and, of course, Bosnia. Today Britain commits
more troops to United Nations peace-keeping than any other
Member State — with 10,250 out of a total of 69,000.
Near the end of its first half-century, the end of the
cold war opened a new chapter for the United Nations.
After years of super-Power stalemate, it again became
possible to take effective action in the Security Council,
including by authorizing the use of force to reverse
aggression. Almost immediately a rash of ethnically based
regional disputes began to break out, from the former
Yugoslavia in the West to Central Asia in the East.
Early experience brought a sense of exhilaration.
When Saddam Hussein made his foolish miscalculation and
sought to wipe Kuwait off the map, the United Nations was
the means chosen to stop him, and it worked. Talk of a
new world order did not seem empty.
Five years on, the record looks more diffuse. The
international community could do little to halt disintegration
in Somalia or to avert bloody collapse in Rwanda. The wars
of secession in the former Yugoslavia have dragged on for
four years.
But those who speak of United Nations failure are
wrong. The pendulum that swung too far towards euphoria
after the Gulf War has swung too far towards despair. Look
at the facts.
Alongside the torment of Bosnia and Rwanda are the
democratic revolutions that have swept South Africa, South
America and Central and Eastern Europe. We live in a
post-apartheid world, with a Europe of free nations and
the Middle East peace process a reality rather than a
slogan. The United Nations has helped bring about peace
in Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique and at
last, perhaps, in Angola. Even in Bosnia, the real good
the United Nations has done has been obscured by unreal
expectations. The reality of the past five years is not one
of spreading world disorder, but of painstaking, steady
efforts to build peace.
Compare this record to the grim setting for the first
General Assembly meeting in 1946, when whole regions
lay in ruins after five years of world war. The truth is that
the history of serious attempts at international cooperation
is still quite young. The United Nations is by far its most
successful expression. There is today no one country or
group of countries ready and able to cope with new world
disorder all alone, and since regional instability and
economic dislocation affect all our interests, we need a
strong and effective United Nations.
This is not to deny the need for change. But it is no
good simply blaming the Organization. We, the United
Nations Members, must meet our obligations to help
improve the system. We have done much in recent years.
The United Nations is better able now to plan, mount and
conduct missions. Britain and others have seconded
military officers to New York to develop the planning and
operational capability and funded secondments by other
nations. Last year Britain helped launch a new initiative
on African peace-keeping. That is bearing fruit now, in
United Nations regional training, in closer cooperation
between African countries and the Organization of
African Unity (OAU) Conflict Resolution Mechanism and
in products like the Anglo-French Peace-keeping
Glossary, developed by the Ghanaian Staff College.
The process of reform must continue. The more
seriously the United Nations addresses issues like pre-
planning, logistic support and command and control, the
more confidence troop contributors will have, the more
forces will be put at the disposal of the United Nations
and the more effective the operations will be.
Changing procedures is not enough. We must learn
to be more realistic in what we ask of the United Nations.
That means not setting aspirations we cannot provide the
means to meet. Sometimes a declaratory statement is
useful to put the international community’s views on
record, to underpin a consensus. At other times it may be
better for the Security Council to remain silent than to
issue unrealistic pronouncements.
10

Bosnia and Somalia have shown the limits of peace-
keeping. They offer a clear lesson. The United Nations is
not yet suited to fight wars. Peace enforcement is better
left, perhaps, to a coalition of the willing acting under
United Nations authority. We must not send in the United
Nations to keep a peace which does not exist and then
blame the United Nations for failure, nor send it in
mandated and equipped to keep the peace and then blame
it because it does not enforce the peace.
Whatever the blemishes of recent years, there is
greater scope today for effective international action than
ever before. The United Nations should be the centre-point
of such work. I suggest we should focus greater effort in
future on two areas.
First, preventive action is better than cure. Far better
than containing or extinguishing a fire is stopping it from
igniting. Bosnia is the most tragic example. Today the
prospects for peace look a little stronger. I commend the
efforts of Dick Holbrooke, supported by the Contact Group,
to mediate between the parties, and the agreement reached
in Geneva on 8 September. Many hard choices lie ahead for
all sides before a final settlement is achieved. But we have
made a start. It is vital that all parties seize this chance for
peace. Only political negotiations, not military force, can
secure that.
But the war has dragged on for three and a half years
now. Tens of thousands of people have been killed;
millions more have been made homeless. It will take years
for the wounds inflicted on that country to heal. Certainly
the suffering would have been many times worse without
a United Nations presence. When I was in Sarajevo last
week, the Bosnian Government told me how much it values
the work done by British and other forces to help the
people of Bosnia. But how much better for all these people
if war had been avoided from the start. Perhaps much of
the damage and destruction might have been prevented by
closer international attention to the problems and tensions
arising from the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.
We have started to learn that lesson. The early
deployment of a small United Nations force in The Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has helped to stop
conflict from spreading there. Elsewhere the quiet
diplomacy of the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe has helped defuse tension in Ukraine and
Albania; has nudged adversaries toward peace talks in
Georgia, Moldova and Chechnya. There are few headlines
for successes that avert fighting and save lives. But the
headlines of war carry a heavy price. Preventive action is
a wiser investment.
Many routes exist. Britain and France have sketched
out one model: to use the skills of diplomats, of soldiers,
of academics and others to defuse tension and promote
dialogue. The presence of aid workers, human rights
monitors, or United Nations envoys can help contain a
brewing crisis; and all credit to the United Nations
representative doing that in Burundi. We strongly support
the efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to
work with the United Nations in preventive diplomacy
and conflict resolution. The initiative on African peace-
keeping will help.
So many different actors can play a part. The crucial
point is not who acts but when. Early warning of a crisis
and prompt action by the international community are the
real key to avoiding further tragedy of the kind we have
seen in Bosnia.
My second proposal is for a new approach to peace-
building. To provide lasting security requires more than
diplomacy and military force. To build real peace we
must bridge the gap between our humanitarian work and
our long-term development work.
Aid workers have grown used to coping with the
debris of war. In the past five years the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) has given help to millions fleeing conflict:
Rwandans in Tanzania and Zaire, Afghans in Iran and
Pakistan, Liberians in Côte d’Ivoire and in Guinea. But
too often we treat short-term humanitarian needs in
isolation. Huge sums have been spent in humanitarian
efforts in Rwanda, for example. But Rwanda’s long-term
stability depends on rebuilding the structures of society
and on civil rights; helping local communities to help
themselves, in areas from health and housing through to
an effective judiciary.
I suggest that two elements are key to a new
approach.
First of all, we must adopt a longer-term perspective
in tackling immediate crises. Even when a cease-fire is
holding, or elections have taken place, if the framework
of society is shaky, a continued international presence can
offer it stability until a government can cope. An abrupt
end to a mission, by contrast, can be very destabilizing.
In El Salvador, for example, a small human rights team
stayed on after the United Nations troops had left, to
11

provide further advice and monitoring. Peace-keepers
themselves can help begin the work of reconstruction. The
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the aid
agencies have been doing that for over a year in central
Bosnia, underpinning reconciliation between Muslim and
Croat communities by rebuilding roads and hospitals and
schools.
I strongly support the thesis of the Secretary-General’s
recent report: that we must go beyond electoral assistance,
to preparing the social and institutional ground in which
democracy and civil society can put down firm roots. The
task of rebuilding Bosnia could be a model for the future.
Secondly, we need far better coordination in what we
do. If funds are to be gathered and used quickly and
effectively, donors themselves must make a greater effort
to meet their promises of help. Before operations begin, as
planning gets under way, the international financial
institutions must be involved from the start, as they were in
Cambodia. All the actors in the United Nations system must
be working together, military and political, humanitarian
and development, crossing the traditional boundaries
between rival baronies. Such a coalition of interests could
plug the gap we see too often now, until the major
reconstruction programmes can begin.

My proposal is to build on these principles in United
Nations programmes for stabilization and transition. There
are many areas where international expertise can help
restore a society; creating judicial systems; training an
army; developing a finance ministry or a diplomatic service.
To fulfil these needs, we should be prepared to loan our
experts to countries emerging from conflict, as Britain’s
Know-How Fund does for countries in Central and Eastern
Europe emerging from communism. United Nations
programmes for stabilization and transition could be the
greatest contribution we could make to international
security.
The demands on the United Nations have grown
enormously. To meet them the United Nations needs
change at the centre too. I welcome work under way to cut
costs and reduce waste in New York. The whole United
Nations system must learn from that example. We need
better planning and budgeting, an end to fraud and
mismanagement. More subcontracting can help, using non-
governmental organizations, even private companies, for
tasks like mine clearance and logistics in Angola. And there
is still too much duplication between the United Nations
agencies. Rhetoric is not enough. Reform has to be real,
and it has to be soon.
This is not a side issue. It is not a narrow interest.
If we are to do the United Nations work effectively —
peace-keeping, aid or humanitarian — we must use its
resources better. No one, G-7 or G-77, benefits from
waste. Recent experience has shown the United Nations
is in some ways ill-fitted for its tasks; under-powered in
some areas, like peace-keeping and preventive diplomacy;
but, however, still bloated in other parts of the system.
United Nations Members must pay their dues. But the
United Nations must justify those funds, and get the most
from them, by hard decisions on duplication and over-
staffing, and diverting resources to the top priorities.
Britain supports enlargement of the Security Council
to broaden its base without reducing its effectiveness.
Permanent membership is the key issue. Permanent
members of the Security Council must be both willing
and able to make a significant contribution through the
United Nations to international security. That is what the
Security Council is about. That is what it must remain if
it is to be effective. Germany and Japan are playing an
increasing part across the range of United Nations
business, and are among the top three financial
contributors. It is right that they should benefit from an
expansion of the permanent membership, with the wider
rights that entails, but also with the wider responsibilities
to contribute to security and peace-keeping. Broad
geographical balance in an enlarged Council also needs to
be maintained.
But the United Nations system will never work if we
do not fund it properly. The United Nations is on the
verge of financial collapse. It is owed over $3.7 billion in
unpaid contributions. Troop contributors are owed nearly
$1 billion. Last year 39 countries failed to pay at all. The
United Kingdom favours tightening of penalties for non-
payment, including the charging of interest on late
payments. We find unacceptable cross-funding of regular
budget deficits from the peace-keeping budget. Perhaps an
appropriate policy could best be entitled: No
Representation without Taxation!
The financing arrangements must change. Some
members pay too much. Others, like the new economic
giants of the developing world, now pay less than they
should. We need a scale that is simpler and reflects a
country’s real capacity to pay, and without the additional
anomalies and distortions of the present system. Britain
12

and Sweden have put forward ideas. We need progress
soon.
But the problem is not solved by turning the tap off.
This year we have all reaffirmed our support for goals and
work of the United Nations. But empty words will not pay
bills.
The final lesson from the last 50 years may be the
most important: the case for a strong, effective United
Nations.
In conclusion, may I say that the United Nations today
faces a crisis of confidence. United States Congressmen
may be the most vocal sceptics. They are not alone. The air
of optimism, of a fresh start after the cold war, is overtaken
in some quarters by gloom at the instability and
fragmentation around us, and pessimism at our ability to
cope. This despair is dangerous.
Multilateral action is not an add-on to national policy.
It gives wider legitimacy to principles we value, such as
human rights and democracy. It spreads the cost of aims we
share, such as freeing Kuwait from invasion or restoring
democracy in Haiti. It lets us work with others to fight
common threats, such as greenhouse-gas emissions or the
international drug trade.
The price is not high. The bill for all United Nations
peace-keeping, all aid and development work last year, was
slightly over 3.5 per cent of the United States’ defence
budget, or less than the United Kingdom spends on police
and public administration. One day of Operation Desert
Storm cost as much as all that year’s United Nations peace-
keeping. The price of disengagement and disorder would be
greater. Public support is there. Even in the United States,
polls are clear: people support the United Nations, and they
support international peace-keeping. We have a duty to our
electorates to continue the United Nations work.
It is easy to forget the United Nations successes over
50 years. It is easy to turn away from disorder and chaos.
But the world is too small. Crises in distant countries affect
us too; our commerce, our citizens overseas, our
neighbour’s security — ultimately it is our own. It is in our
interest to play what part we can to build a more decent
world. If the United Nations were not here to help do that,
we would have to invent something else.
The experience of five decades offers lessons for the
future. I know the Secretary-General is committed to
change. Getting the United Nations we need for the twenty-
first century requires the support and participation of all
Member States. The United Kingdom has played a full
part in the United Nations for 50 years, and we will
continue to do so.


 On behalf of my country and my
Government, Sir, may I first of all extend warmest
congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of
this session of the General Assembly, which coincides
with the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the
United Nations. Your assumption of the presidency of this
session is a crowning event in a long and brilliant
political and diplomatic career, and will undoubtedly
ensure the success of our deliberations. It is all the more
gratifying for us to emphasize this fact, since we share
with your country, Portugal, a historic past of deeply
rooted links of culture and cooperation, which today unite
our peoples and our countries.
We also extend our congratulations to your
predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Amara Essy, the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Côte d’Ivoire, a country
with which we have excellent relations of friendship and
cooperation, on the brilliant way in which he guided the
proceedings of the forty-ninth session.
We also want to take this opportunity to express to
the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, our appreciation for the dynamic way in
which he is leading our Organization.
As we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of our
Organization, and one year after the holding of the first
multiparty elections in Guinea-Bissau, I feel particularly
honoured to have the privilege of representing my country
at this historic session of the General Assembly. This
event offers the international community a special
occasion and an appropriate framework for reaffirming
our full adherence to the principles of the United Nations
Charter. A half century after its creation, the United
Nations must, more than ever before, be able to confront
new challenges.
Guinea-Bissau is of the opinion that in order to best
respond to the needs of the day, our Organization must
undertake urgent and appropriate reforms. I am convinced
that the political and socio-economic changes taking place
on the international scene have repercussions for the
functioning of our Organization. It is our profound
conviction that the end of the bipolarization of
international relations and the cold war promises better
conditions for the future of our Organization.
The broad prospects opening up for the process of
the peaceful settlement of conflicts in many parts of the
world are not just a matter of circumstance, but are rather
the expression of the international community’s
unequivocal will to establish lasting peace.
24

It is in this context that we note with satisfaction that
after so many efforts made by the international community,
the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in
particular, significant progress has been made in Liberia.
As far as Angola is concerned, we welcome the way
in which the negotiation process and the implementation of
the agreements signed in Lusaka have developed. We
congratulate the people and leaders of the fraternal country
of Mozambique for the exemplary way in which the first
multiparty elections took place there.
The situation in Somalia continues to be of serious
concern to Guinea-Bissau. We urge the parties concerned
to put an end to hostilities, and to continue negotiations
with a view to achieving national reconciliation.
In the Middle East, the peace process deserves the
support of the international community. We thus welcome
with satisfaction the progress achieved.
As regards Jammu and Kashmir, my country urges the
parties to the conflict to find a just and lasting solution.
My country continues to support the initiatives
regarding negotiations in East Timor, under the auspices of
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with a view to
a just solution.
In connection with the question of the embargo
affecting Cuba, which has an impact on the population of
that country, Guinea-Bissau encourages dialogue between
the parties concerned with a view to a definitive and
satisfactory solution.
In the former Yugoslavia, where the international
community has been witness to acts of inhumanity, we can
at last welcome with optimism the progress achieved in the
course of negotiations.
As the international community celebrates the fiftieth
anniversary of the establishment of our universal
Organization, may I, on behalf of my Government, reiterate
our firm conviction that the Republic of China on Taiwan
should form part of the United Nations on the basis of the
application of the principle of the parallel representation of
divided countries. In this context, it would be desirable for
the two countries to participate simultaneously in
international activities, with a view to promoting
constructive contacts and negotiations. Respect for and the
exercise of human rights and pluralist democracy are
factors in producing national unity and peace, and in
preserving international stability. Guinea-Bissau continues
to endeavour to defend and safeguard this concept, whose
constant application is vital to development.
Guinea-Bissau continues to work to improve the
management of its economy. The proper implementation
of a structural adjustment programme reflects the constant
concerns of my Government. I am convinced that in spite
of our own efforts of macroeconomic management to
improve the well-being of our populations, my country
needs the support of the international community, with a
view to confronting the many development challenges we
face. The poverty and social injustice suffered by most of
mankind constitute root causes of the conflict, threatening
the peace and stability of the world; the ideological
tensions of the cold war could, indeed, be replaced by
other crises, especially crises of an economic and
financial origin, if urgent measures are not immediately
taken.
The threat to the environment is a reality which must
be urgently combated. The protection of the ecosystem
requires continued support for the development process of
the poorest countries. It is for this reason that we believe
that underdevelopment poses a serious threat to the
environment of the African continent. The countries
members of the Permanent Inter-State Committee on
Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS) are facing grave
problems of draught and other natural disasters that could
seriously compromise their social and economic
development.
More than ever before, international cooperation is
becoming imperative for world peace and for the
protection and strengthening of human dignity in order to
ensure full enjoyment of the rights and aspirations of
present and future generations. The social development
activities of the United Nations should focus in particular
on the most vulnerable groups, such as women, children,
young people, the aged and the disabled.
Guinea-Bissau, which is loyal to the principles of the
Charter, reaffirms its determination to contribute to the
maintenance of international peace and security and
solemnly reiterates its firm resolve to persevere in that
direction. In this context, we welcome with pleasure the
results of the World Summit for Social Development and
of the Fourth World Conference on Women.
Guinea-Bissau’s contribution to the attainment of the
purposes and principles of our Organization is well
25

known. Our participation in different peace-keeping
operations around the world is the clearest illustration of
this. We are convinced that the maintenance of international
peace and security is the collective responsibility of all
Member
States, large and small, in accordance with the principle
of the sovereign equality of States. In this context, my
country, Guinea-Bissau, submitted its candidature for a
non-permanent seat on the Security Council, which has
been endorsed by the African Group. In this regard, I
request the support of all Member States.