I wish to join those who
have spoken before me in congratulating Mr. Didier Opertti
on his election to the presidency of the fifty-third session of
the General Assembly. His vast experience and skill assure
us that he will guide the deliberations of the Assembly to
a successful end. I assure him of the full support of my
delegation as he carries out his important mandate.
Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to his
predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko of
Ukraine, for his outstanding leadership during his tenure
last session.
The Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi
Annan, deserves appreciation for his commendable efforts
and for the effective leadership he has provided to ensure
the realization of the ideals of our Organization by making
the United Nations more effective and better able to serve
its Members.
The end of the cold war, even if only briefly, raised
hopes and expectations and sent tidings of a more peaceful,
safer, just and fair world safeguarded from conflict and
tension, hunger and disease. Such hopes and expectations
were to be frustrated rather early as the world was plunged
in numerous conflicts between and with States, ethnic
violence and hatred, terrorism, gross violations of human
rights, racism and xenophobia, as well as mass starvation
and an increase in the number of refugees and displaced
persons.
The international community cannot dismiss or,
much less, ignore this situation, which in some cases has
caused the commission of serious international crimes, not
only because it is generally the innocent and the weak —
women, children and the elderly — who are the first
victims, but also because this situation, which now seems
to be limited to certain regions, may soon engulf wider
areas of the world. In the face of these harsh realities, it
is incumbent on the United Nations and the international
community to search for fresh, innovative approaches
with a view to eliminating the root causes of this
situation, in order to ensure respect for the basic
principles of the Charter, to save the innocent from the
scourge of terrorism and to protect the human and civil
rights of ethnic minorities. If they fail to do so, it will not
only prolong the agony of the victims but will, in fact,
sooner or later, threaten regional as well as international
peace and security.
The founding fathers of our Organization recognized
economic development as one of humanity’s inalienable
rights, and set as one of the goals of the United Nations
the promotion of social progress and better standards of
life in larger freedom. I am certain that all developing
countries would declare in no uncertain terms that this
goal has so far been unattained.
The situation in Africa is cause for serious concern.
In spite of the great efforts exerted by regional and
subregional organizations and agencies, the situation in
many parts of the continent is deteriorating and becoming
more dangerous by the day. The tragic bloodshed and
suffering that Africans have witnessed in the recent past
in various parts of the continent are too horrible to recite.
They must not recur and, where they continue to exist,
they must be stopped.
In the Great Lakes region, conflicts are developing
much wider ramifications, in spite of their seeming
regional containment. They pose a grave threat to peace
and security, as they may soon involve extraregional
Powers. It is hoped that through ongoing regional
initiatives it will be possible to formulate just and
mutually acceptable solutions. In the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Africans and the rest of the world have
been forced to witness the disheartening spectacle of an
22

African country which had barely emerged from the cruel
destruction of a rapacious dictatorship being once again
ravaged by multifaceted fighting. This has also divided the
broad African coalition which had contributed to the
promotion of peace and security in that country. This sad
state of affairs must be quickly reversed on the basis of full
respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and a recognition that
the internal political process is the sole prerogative of the
Congolese people, and with awareness of the need for a
regional framework of cooperation to address the security
concerns of the countries of the region.
Somalia and the Sudan continue to be sources of
anguish and sorrow for Africa, because there is still a lack
of progress in the efforts to resolve the crises in both
countries. The frustration of the international community at
the lack of progress in peacemaking in both countries is
understandable. It must be noted, however, that genuine
efforts continue to be made by the countries of the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and
the international community must not despair or give up,
but must contribute to the efforts of these countries if they
are to be successful. In this connection, my delegation
upholds the view that with regard to the Sudan conflict
IGAD’s Declaration of Principles and consequent
resolutions remain the sound basis for a just and lasting
solution to the conflict.
In my statement last year I declared that Eritrea’s
foreign policy rested on two basic tenets. The first was the
deep conviction that where there is goodwill all disputes
can be resolved through peaceful negotiations and methods
without recourse to violence. The second tenet was the
unswerving devotion of Eritrea to justice and equality. I
also declared that these two tenets have influenced our
search for friendship and cooperation with our neighbours,
as well as with other States. This statement is as valid
today as it was last year.
The commitment of the Government of Eritrea to
these two tenets has helped to defuse conflict with the
Republic of Yemen and to arrive at a mutual understanding
to resolve the dispute over the Eritrean archipelago of
Hanish-Zukar in the Red Sea by peaceful means through
arbitration.
Today, too, the Government of Eritrea insists that the
road to peace with Ethiopia is by a strict application and
enforcement of the principles of the Charters of the United
Nations and the Organization of African Unity (OAU), as
well as the OAU decision on colonial borders. Once again,
Eritrea calls upon the international community,
particularly the United Nations and the OAU, to ensure
respect for these principles and the decision.
Eritrea was surprised and disturbed by the eruption
of conflict with Ethiopia because, in spite of
disagreements on the issue of boundaries, dating back to
the days of armed struggle the Eritrean Government had
assumed and hoped that in view of the close relations
between the two countries, it was possible to arrive at an
amicable and enduring solution.
The responsibility for the escalation of the dispute
rests solely with the Government of Ethiopia, which has
for a long period of time consistently violated the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea, resulting in
the occupation of large tracts of Eritrean territory,
followed by the forced displacement of Eritrean peasants
and the replacement of Eritrean administrative structures
by Ethiopian institutions. It reached a climax on 6 May
only as a result of the further unprovoked incursions by
members of the Ethiopian armed forces, which attacked
Eritrean troops in the Badme region, in south-western
Eritrea. These incursions were premeditated and
meticulously planned. This is the root cause of the
dispute.
For a long time Eritreans had opted for patient and
quiet diplomacy. They had hoped against hope that the
periodic incursions were only the petty acts of some
miscreant and ill-advised regional officials. It was only at
a very late stage — and particularly after the publication
in 1997 of an official map of the Tigray administrative
zone incorporating additional indisputably Eritrean
territory and after the issuance of the new Ethiopian
currency note depicting the same map — that they
realized the full meaning of the Ethiopian adventure. Yet,
even in the aftermath of the fighting that was triggered by
the unprovoked Ethiopian incursion and attacks on
Eritrean troops, Eritrea never crossed its internationally
recognized border; but Ethiopia still controls other
Eritrean territory in south-western Eritrea.
In spite of all this evidence of its aggressive deeds,
the Ethiopian Government is conducting an absurd
propaganda campaign to portray Eritrea as a
warmongering nation which has committed aggression
against, and occupies, Ethiopian territory. Nothing could
be further from the truth. At no time have Eritrean troops
crossed Eritrea’s internationally recognized borders as
everybody can see. On the contrary, it was Ethiopian
troops that invaded Eritrea after Prime Minister Meles
23

Zenawi’s declaration of war on 13 May 1998. They were
repulsed. It is important to note that the Deputy Foreign
Minister of Ethiopia, Dr. Tekeda Alemu, had articulated
Ethiopia’s expansionist designs by publicly declaring in a
speech to members of the Ethiopian community in the
United States that Ethiopia would occupy the Eritrean port
of Assab within a short time. In the light of the above,
Ethiopia’s claims that it is the victim of aggression and will
not negotiate unless Eritrea withdraws from “its territory”
are obviously false and only meant to hoodwink the
international community and to cover up its own acts of
aggression.
Even today, Ethiopia is threatening war unless Eritrea
withdraws unconditionally from territories which are fully
within its internationally recognized borders. Today
virtually the whole of the Ethiopian army has taken
positions along the Eritrean border, and almost all of the
highest leaders of Ethiopia, including the President, the
Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Defence, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, the
President of the Tigray region and a Senior Official of the
TPLF have publicly declared in just the past few days that
Ethiopia has finalized war preparations and will soon teach
Eritreans lessons they will never forget.
It is regrettable, therefore, that all the goodwill and
efforts of the Eritrean Government, consisting of several
constructive proposals, to bring about a peaceful and legal
settlement of the present border dispute with Ethiopia, on
the basis of the OAU resolution on colonial borders, have
been consistently rejected by the Ethiopian Government,
which obdurately pursues a policy which is committed to
the settlement of matters by military means. The Ethiopian
Government has also rejected all overtures by third parties
for a peaceful solution of the dispute and all calls made by
the international community to seek a peaceful solution.
This expansionist and aggressive policy is underscored
by the use or threat of force, as well as a massive and
malicious propaganda campaign against Eritrea. The
propaganda campaign accents ethnic hatred and vituperation
against and slander of the Eritrean people and members of
the Eritrean Government. It also calls upon the Eritrean
people to rise up against their Government.
At the same time, the Ethiopian Government has been
systematically and wilfully violating the most sacred and
cherished provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the two International Covenants and several other
international human rights instruments, as well as the
principles enshrined in the United Nations and OAU
Charters, by deporting or expelling more than 20,000
Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin under
extremely unhealthy conditions or dumping them in very
dangerous places, and by deliberately separating family
members, exposing them to inhuman, cruel and degrading
treatment and confiscating their property. These acts have
been well documented by third parties, including members
of United Nations agencies, heads of mission of member
States of the European Union and several non-
governmental organizations.
Yet the Ethiopian Government, in an amazingly
refined application of the Orwellian principle, accuses the
Eritrean Government of precisely the outrages and
atrocities it itself has been committing against Eritreans
and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin. The truth is that the
Eritrean Government has not detained, expelled, deported
or otherwise violated the rights — human or otherwise —
of Ethiopians living in Eritrea. This has been verified by
legitimate third parties like representatives of the
European Union, United Nations agencies and the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). As
usual, the Ethiopian Government has called all of them
liars. We have hitherto extended an invitation to all
interested parties to carry out an on-the-spot verification
of the human rights conditions in both Eritrea and
Ethiopia. We now extend this invitation to members of
the Assembly. We also would like them to receive a
similar invitation from the Ethiopian Government.
This dispute is about borders, pure and simple. Any
effort to transmute it into anything else must be viewed
as only a vain and brazen attempt by the Ethiopian
Government to camouflage its aggression and its
expansionist policies. In this connection, it must be made
clear that it was the Ethiopian Government which wilfully
violated Eritrea’s colonial boundaries and forcefully
occupied those areas that it had incorporated into its new
map of Tigray. It was the Ethiopian Government which
subverted all Eritrean efforts to defuse the crisis and to
find a peaceful bilateral solution through their Joint
Border Commission by unleashing unprovoked military
attacks on Eritrea from 6 to 12 May. It was the Ethiopian
Government which declared war on Eritrea by a
resolution of its Parliament on 13 May. It was the
Government of Ethiopia which invaded Eritrea along
several points on their common border. It was the
Government of Ethiopia which launched an air strike on
Asmara, the Eritrean capital, on 5 June 1998. It was the
Ethiopian Government which imposed an air and sea
blockade by threatening indiscriminate air bombing of
Eritrea.
24

Yet Ethiopia has falsely portrayed Eritrea as an
aggressor country by claiming that Eritrean forces invaded
Ethiopian territory on 12 May. However, it is not claims
and counter-claims that matter. There is incontrovertible
material evidence which establishes that Ethiopia has
deliberately used force and carried out military incursions
in Eritrea since July 1997 with a view to covertly changing
the reality on the ground. In this connection, I wish to bring
to the Assembly’s attention that the Eritrean Government
has repeatedly called for an independent investigation of the
incidents that triggered the conflict.
This border dispute should not have existed in the first
place, considering that boundaries between the two States
are some of the most clearly defined in Africa and were
made by explicit and detailed provisions of international
treaties. They were then confirmed by the United Nations
when it created the ill-fated Eritrean-Ethiopian federation,
and again clearly defined in the Constitution that the United
Nations gave to Eritrea.
True, the borders may not have been demarcated; but
they are not the only undemarcated borders in Africa, and
the non-demarcation of boundaries has not prevented most
African — and indeed other — States from living in peace
with their neighbours and from solving their problems
peacefully.
Eritrea is committed to a peaceful and legal solution
of this dispute on the basis of the principles of sovereignty
and territorial integrity of States which are enshrined in the
charters of both the United Nations and the OAU as well as
the decisions and declarations of the OAU and the Non-
Aligned Movement. Since before the onset of the crisis,
Eritrea has been attempting to initiate numerous bilateral
discussions with Ethiopia with a view to addressing all
outstanding issues related to their common borders. In this
connection, the following must be mentioned.
First, the Eritrean Cabinet and National Assembly
issued orders, on 14 and 20 May 1998 and again on 18
June 1998, respectively, for the temporary demilitarization
of the areas of dispute.
Secondly, the Eritrean President sent two letters to the
Prime Minister of Ethiopia requesting him to join him in
defusing the dispute and settling the border issue peacefully
and legally on a bilateral basis.
Thirdly, the Eritrean Government presented to the
OAU Committee of Ambassadors a proposal containing the
principles of respect of colonial boundaries and non-
violation of these borders; respect of the charters of the
OAU and the United Nations; commitment not to use
force to impose a solution; commitment to peaceful and
legal means to solve the dispute; readiness to stop all
hostilities; and readiness to enter into direct talks without
preconditions.
Unfortunately, all our efforts failed because of
negative responses from Ethiopia. On the other hand,
Ethiopia has yet to offer a single plan or peace proposal.
It has only threatened war unless Eritrea withdraws from
territories which are within the internationally recognized
borders of Eritrea. In this connection, it must be
mentioned that the Eritrean Government has time and
again requested the Ethiopian Government to publicly
announce to the peoples of Eritrea, Ethiopia and the
international community the territories that it claims and
to designate them on a political map with clear
geographical coordinates.
It is for these reasons that the Government of Eritrea
yet again offers the following as a basis for the solution
of the dispute.
First, the comprehensive solution of the problem
through a technical demarcation on the basis of the
established colonial treaties that clearly define the
boundary between the two countries.
Secondly, a possible resort to arbitration on the basis
of the sanctity of colonial borders in the event that this is
demanded by the other party.
Pending a lasting, legal solution, an immediate
cessation of all hostilities and a ceasefire to be monitored
by an observer force under the auspices of the United
Nations.
It is a matter of satisfaction to the people and
Government of Eritrea that numerous governmental
institutions, international and regional organizations and
non-governmental organizations, including the House of
Representatives of the United States Congress, the
European Union and the Non-Aligned Movement, have,
in welcoming the Eritrean initiative, called upon both
Eritrea and Ethiopia to avoid the use of force at all costs
and to resolve their disputes peacefully.
I wish to declare here and now, in loud and clear
terms, that the Government of Eritrea welcomes, and is
ready to undertake to implement, a decision by the
Assembly which provides without any preconditions for
the cessation of hostilities, a ceasefire agreement and a
25

peaceful resolution of the dispute by any method as the
only acceptable solution.
In Africa, conflicts such as the present Eritrean-
Ethiopian border dispute have taken place several times in
the past. Each one of these conflicts was addressed on the
basis of the hallowed principles and decisions of the OAU,
including in particular respect for colonial borders, the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and the non-
use of force or threat of force.
As the OAU prepares itself to enter the twenty-first
century, it is imperative that its member States rededicate
themselves to the sublime principles and resolutions that
have hitherto served our continent. These principles and
decisions, which have successfully fostered peace and
stability, solved conflicts and defused tension in our
continent in the past, will be as valid in the future as they
have been since they were first articulated. Only through
their proper application will it be possible to defuse
tension and eliminate conflict.
Eritrea reiterates its commitment to peace, harmony
and the rule of law in international relations, however
painful this tragedy may be. Eritrea seeks peace for itself
and for all of its neighbours. Eritrea will continue to seek
good relations with all its neighbours.
Eritrea is in a race against the clock of development
and cannot afford to lose the time, energy and resources
which must be used in the war against underdevelopment.
To date, Eritrea has restrained itself against extreme
provocation, and it will continue to do so unless it is
forced to defend itself. If aggression is committed against
their country, however, Eritreans will have no choice but
to defend their hard-won independence and sovereignty as
well as every inch of their territory with whatever is at
their disposal.


Allow me first of all to
congratulate Mr. Didier Opertti on his election to the
presidency of the General Assembly. His election to that
high office demonstrates not only the support that
Uruguay enjoys in the international arena, but also the
confidence and trust that the members of the Assembly
have in his ability to guide the work of this session to a
successful conclusion. Allow me also to record my
delegation’s profound gratitude and appreciation to his
predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko,
former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, for the
exemplary manner in which he steered the work of the
General Assembly throughout the past year.
I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf
of my delegation, to express our sincere thanks and
admiration to the Secretary-General, His Excellency
Mr. Kofi Annan, for his untiring work and dedication in
promoting the cause of this Organization. The Secretary-
General deserves every assistance and cooperation from
all the States Members of the Organization in his
endeavours to fulfil the enormous responsibilities that we
have placed upon his shoulders in achieving the goals of
the United Nations in a world full of political unrest,
ethnic conflicts and natural disasters.
From the forest fires in South-East Asia, Europe and
North America to the horrendous floods and droughts in
Asia, Africa and the Americas, we have been witnessing
a drastic increase in the number of natural disasters
occurring in various regions of the world with immense
loss to human life and property. The excessive effects of
the environmental phenomena known as El Niño and La
Niña are sweeping across four continents with deadly
consequences. Record-breaking temperatures around the
globe have spared no country. My country also
experienced record high temperatures early this year,
bleaching and killing coral reefs and causing enormous
6

imbalance in the ever so fragile ecosystem that surrounds
our tiny islands.
The Maldives may be situated outside the cyclone belt;
we may have no rivers to flood, volcanoes to erupt or large
forests to burn. But my country is as vulnerable to natural
disasters as any other. Indeed, for the past decade we have
lived with the fear of being slowly engulfed by the rising
waters of the mighty Indian Ocean that surrounds us. Our
fears have become more alarming since we have seen the
death and destruction caused by the tsunami in Papua New
Guinea and the devastating floods in Bangladesh. We have
been forced to wonder what would happen if such a
disaster struck our tiny, low-lying country.
When my President addressed this Assembly on the
impending dangers of global warming and sea level rise
over a decade ago, the extent of the threat posed by climate
change was not yet widely known or accepted. Today we
note that the realities of global warming are being
acknowledged by scientists and politicians all over the
world. However, mere acknowledgement of the danger is
not enough. As we have stated repeatedly over the years, if
we are to arrest and reverse this lurking threat, we need the
unwavering commitment and cooperation of the entire
international community. It is important that we fully and
urgently implement the commitments that we ourselves
have undertaken at various international conferences. In this
regard, I urge the international community, and especially
the industrialized countries, to honour their commitments
without any further delay. My delegation believes that full
and unconditional implementation of the Barbados
Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of
Small Island Developing States is essential for the
continued development of those countries. My country, for
its part, has done and will continue to do everything that is
required of it to contribute to this goal, and we hope that
the other Members of this Organization will fulfil their
commitments.
Although we were happy with some of the agreements
reached at the Kyoto Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
last year, I regret to say that we were not fully satisfied
with the achievements there. We accepted the Kyoto
Protocol because we felt that it contained some important
elements that deserved recognition and implementation, and
because it is the best negotiated agreement available at
present. In order to demonstrate our firm commitment to
the climate change negotiations, we went one step further
and signed the Kyoto Protocol as the first signatory State.
We call upon all States to become parties to the Protocol
and implement the targets specified in it.
In our small island States, the environment and the
economy are intertwined very closely. Tourism and
fishing are the two dominant economic sectors in the
Maldives, and in a number of other small island States as
well. For the Maldives, the tourism sector has been the
main source of foreign exchange earnings and has
accounted for more than 40 per cent of gross domestic
product. Effects of global warming such as sea level rise,
beach erosion, coral bleaching, increasing stress on
coastal ecosystems, salinization of freshwater aquifers and
damage to infrastructure from tropical storms are,
however, threatening to jeopardize the viability and the
long-term sustainability of our tourist industry. Given the
limited availability of resources, many small island
developing States, including the Maldives, are not in a
position to carry the burden of the high cost of
environmental protection on their own. Therefore, we are
fully convinced that without adequate, new and additional
financial resources, transfer of environmentally sound
technology on concessional and preferential terms, and
provision for human resources development, even the
mere survival of our countries will be impossible.
The vulnerability to external factors of the
economies of small island developing States, especially
the least developed countries among them, is a well-
known fact. Globalization, coupled with the ecological
fragility of small island developing States, has
marginalized those countries from the present multilateral
trading system. Exports from least developed countries
have grown far more slowly than world trade over the
past two decades, resulting in a continued decline in their
share of world trade. Market access for least developed
countries is becoming narrower. Poverty still remains a
stumbling-block in their quest for achieving sustainable
social and economic development. Therefore, we would
like to take this opportunity to call upon the major players
in the world economy and upon our development partners
to pay special attention to assisting small island States
and other least developed countries in their efforts to
become integrated into the world economy.
When gross domestic product is used as an indicator
to determine the developmental status of a country, the
small island developing States may appear to be more
prosperous than they really are. We believe that the
criteria now used by the Committee for Development
Policy in identifying least developed countries do not take
7

into consideration the special circumstances of the small
island developing States and their vulnerability.
The Committee has already recommended the
graduation of four small island developing States from the
list of least developed countries. The Maldives is,
unfortunately, one of them. The irony of this is that the
economies of these countries are heavily dependent on one
or two industries, which may be extremely vulnerable to
global economic and environmental changes and other
external factors. Moreover, while the Committee itself has
identified the obstacles to integration into the global
economy and has called for continued official development
assistance for least developed countries for at least another
10 years, some of the countries most in need of such
assistance have been earmarked for graduation by the year
2000. My delegation feels that it would be grossly unfair to
graduate countries from least developed country status
unless they are able to sustain the momentum of growth
that they have been able to achieve. Furthermore, the
criteria which were adopted in 1991 need to be reviewed in
the context of the increased pace of globalization during the
1990s. Until such time as a vulnerability index is
developed, it would be very imprudent to graduate any
small island States.
This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a major milestone
in the promotion and protection of human rights, providing
an essential basis for democracy, freedom and justice.
Human rights apply without regard to race, gender, creed,
age, colour or economic status. But everywhere we look —
north, south, east or west — the reality often falls short of
the ideal. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to
promote and protect human rights the world over.
The Maldives remains firmly committed to the cause
of promotion and protection of human rights. I am happy
to report that this year a new Constitution has come into
force in the Maldives, providing stronger safeguards for
civil liberties and the fundamental rights of the people, and
strengthening the foundations and processes of our
democracy. We have also been able to achieve remarkable
progress in the realization of social, economic and cultural
rights of the people through continued economic
development and social progress. We believe that
democracy, development and peace are essential for the
realization of human rights.
The question of reform of the Organization has been
on the agenda of the General Assembly for quite some
time. Although the process of reform has proved to be a
difficult one, my delegation does not wish to see it
prolonged, for we believe that its momentum cannot be
maintained indefinitely. However, it is important that we
remain focused on the central issue of making this
Organization ready and capable of delivering the promise
of peace, justice and prosperity for all human beings,
irrespective of their colour, race, gender or belief, and the
promise of providing the means to protect our
environment and enjoy our fundamental freedoms. This
means that reform should cover the United Nations
system in its entirety.
On the specific question of the reform of the
Security Council, my delegation appreciates the efforts of
the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of
Equitable Representation on and Increase in the
Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters
Related to the Security Council. However, we remain
concerned about the lack of progress in its proceedings,
and are worried about the prevailing difficulties which are
preventing an early agreement on this important issue. We
remain convinced of the importance of the early and
successful conclusion of the efforts to make the Security
Council more responsive to and representative of the
current world realities in order to make it more effective.
The commitment of the Maldives to arms control,
disarmament and international peace and security remains
unwavering. We are parties to all major multilateral
instruments relating to arms control and disarmament.
Since its inception, we have been faithfully and regularly
contributing to the international Register of Conventional
Arms. We signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty (CTBT) last year and are presently going through
the process of ratifying it. This morning we have signed
the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
Their Destruction.
My delegation is happy to note the considerable
progress the international community has made in the
field of arms control and disarmament, and commends the
bilateral initiatives that have been proved to be so
successful. We believe that both bilateral and multilateral
approaches must reinforce and complement each other if
we are to successfully achieve complete disarmament.
In my delegation’s view, the establishment of
nuclear-weapon-free zones and zones of peace in various
regions of the world is a positive step towards achieving
nuclear disarmament. At this juncture, we particularly
stress the importance of the establishment of the proposed
8

nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia, and take this
opportunity to call upon all countries in South Asia to
exercise maximum restraint and contribute to the realization
of this noble objective.
In our quest to make the world a safer place we must
not think only of the big Powers and the big bangs.
Security is indivisible, whether in terms of geography or
range of threat. The continuing scourge of terrorism, which
rears its ugly and murderous head all too frequently, is as
much the bane of international security today as is the
spread of nuclear and other dangerous weapons. That
terrorist groups may gain access to such weapons is an
alarming thought. For small States the threats posed by
terrorists are allied with and magnified by the activities of
drug-traffickers, money-launderers and other manifestations
of organized crime. That is why we have acceded to many
international conventions against terrorism and are actively
considering acceding to the remaining conventions.
I would also like to take this opportunity to repeat the
appeal made by my President at the historic fiftieth
anniversary commemorative session of this body for the
signature and early ratification of the International
Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and
Training of Mercenaries in order to expedite its entry in to
force. My delegation believes that in the face of these
threats it is in the interest of the international community to
provide adequate safeguards for small States, which are in
reality the front-line States against most of these evil deeds.
We are happy to see the establishment of the
International Criminal Court. Those who perpetrate war
crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity must
not be allowed to cross a border to safety or anonymity.
This is why an international court that can systematically
prosecute major war criminals wherever they are has to be
established. This need has become more urgent in this post-
cold-war period, which is characterized by the proliferation
of conflicts of unprecedented ferocity. The horrifying
crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and elsewhere cannot
be allowed to recur at any time or at any place. The
perpetrators of those crimes should be brought to justice.
My delegation strongly believes that the ultimate legal
guarantee of peace and justice in the world lies in the
strength and resolve of the international community and not
in the strength and resolve of a single country.
In conclusion, I once again would like to stress the
vulnerability of small island developing States. My
delegation believes that urgent and immediate action is
absolutely necessary to alleviate the difficulties faced by
these countries due to environmental degradation. If the
present-day predictions for climate change were to come
true, the Maldives and many other small island countries
would have to face the frightful reality of extinction.
Time is running out. Let us do something immediately.
Otherwise, we will be no more.


I would like to begin by
congratulating the President on his unanimous election to
the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-third
session. I am confident that under his able leadership and
with his vast diplomatic experience, we shall have fruitful
deliberations and a successful session.
Allow me also to pay tribute to his predecessor,
Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, for the skill and sensitivity he
displayed while presiding over the work of the General
Assembly during its fifty-second session.
May I also take this opportunity to commend the
Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his untiring
efforts to build a prosperous United Nations through the
ongoing reforms to better meet the challenges of the next
millennium. Although adjustment and reorientation can
sometimes be painful, I am confident that under
Mr. Annan's leadership the United Nations will continue
to flourish. Kenya supports the Secretary-General in these
efforts.
The General Assembly provides Member States with
an opportunity to discuss and gain useful insights and
perceptions on key global issues of common concern to
the international community, such as securing a stable,
32

peaceful and equitable world order. In this context, we
continue to witness the presence of the United Nations in
peacekeeping and peace-building, development programmes
and humanitarian assistance in Africa, Europe, Asia and the
Americas.
In our own region, for example, I wish to mention the
good work of the Nairobi-based Great Lakes Programme,
which operates under the auspices of the United Nations
Great Lakes Task Force on Relief, Reconstruction and
Development. This Programme is funded by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and contributes
immensely to identifying the development priorities of the
Great Lakes countries as they endeavour to make a
transition from conflict to development. Furthermore,
Kenya appreciates the timely response by the United
Nations Disaster Management Team to drought and the
floods caused by El Niño. In addition, the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), with the support of the World Food Programme
(WFP), continues to look after the needs of refugees in our
country. All these efforts by United Nations agencies are
commendable and need to be encouraged and sustained.
In the last 10 years, we have witnessed significant
advances in democracy, respect for human rights and
international cooperation. Unfortunately, this was also a
period in which an estimated 4 million people were killed
in armed conflicts. A majority of these conflicts, which
now threaten international peace and security, are of an
intra-State rather than inter-State nature. Currently, there are
up to 30 civil wars and a much larger number of lower-
intensity conflicts being fought around the world. This new
pattern of conflicts comes with new problems and new
challenges for conflict resolution. There is a need, therefore,
to review the existing conflict resolution mechanisms so as
to meet these new challenges. As the Secretary-General?s
Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict
pointed out to the Security Council in June this year,
“Both international and national actors need to take
political, economic and social measures that can
generate within communities a sense of hope in place
of despair, a sense of inclusion and participation
instead of exclusion, a sense of belonging instead of
alienation”. (S/PV.3896, p. 5)
The credibility of the international community is
anchored in its ability to dispense just and sometimes
radical solutions to important questions. I have in mind the
commendable resolve of the world community to punish the
perpetrators of war crimes and other violations of
international humanitarian law. In this connection, Kenya
welcomes the work of the International Criminal
Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well
as the International Criminal Court, which shall soon
become a reality. The international community must
demonstrate its resolve to pursue such criminal elements
whoever and wherever they are.
Kenya supports the legitimization and strengthening
of regional bodies in peacekeeping. The Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the
Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS), under the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) in West Africa, stand out as examples of regional
organizations that have contributed immensely to
peacekeeping in conflict situations. I should also underline
the commendable role played by the Commonwealth of
Independent States and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe in the conflicts in Croatia; Bosnia
and Herzegovina; Albania; Abkhazia, Georgia; and
currently in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia.
In Africa, the forces of the ECOWAS Monitoring
Group (ECOMOG) reinstalled the democratically elected
Government of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone and
restored constitutional order in Liberia. The superb
performance of the Inter-African Mission to Monitor the
Implementation of the Bangui Agreements (MISAB) in
the Central African Republic also deserves
commendation. In the Eastern African region, the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)
continues to promote political dialogue between the
warring factions in the Sudan and Somalia. In southern
Africa, the Southern African Development Community
(SADC) has embarked on initiatives to address, inter alia,
the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
These regional organizations have made significant
progress in conflict resolution and should be given due
recognition and the necessary support. However, I would
like to emphasize that the responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security remains
primarily with the United Nations Security Council.
The holding of special meetings on the causes of
conflict and the promotion of durable peace and
sustainable development in Africa underscored the need
for a concerted international effort to promote peace and
security in our continent. During the special meeting on
Africa held in September 1997 and the follow-up meeting
of 24 September 1998, the Security Council observed
that, despite the progress achieved by some African
33

States, the number and intensity of armed conflicts on the
continent remained a matter of grave concern. We share the
view of the Secretary-General that durable peace and
economic development go hand in hand. Kenya welcomes
the challenge posed by the Secretary-General in the three
broad areas he emphasized in his report: the necessity for
Africa to rely on political rather than military responses to
problems; the need to summon the political will to seriously
promote good governance, human rights and democracy;
and, finally, the necessity to undertake and adhere to
various reforms necessary to promote political stability and
economic growth.
While the general tendency is to seek ways of
deepening political cooperation and economic integration,
the unity and stability of some States, especially on the
African continent, is being threatened by ethnic, social and
other intra-State conflicts. In particular, conflicts in the
Great Lakes region, Somalia and southern Sudan — and,
more recently, the inter-State conflict between Ethiopia and
Eritrea — are of major concern to us. Kenya has been and
will continue to be involved in efforts aimed at reducing
tension in Africa and, indeed, beyond.
In 1996 and 1997, Kenya hosted the various Nairobi
summits on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and, indeed, the conflict in the southern Sudan,
under the auspices of IGAD. More recently, President Moi
met separately with the leaders of Ethiopia and Eritrea in
an effort to secure their commitment to pursuing
negotiations rather than war in their border dispute. These
efforts have helped to complement the important initiatives
of the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity
and others and have, in our view, contributed to ensuring
the avoidance of a full-scale war between Ethiopia and
Eritrea. I trust the necessary goodwill exists for a negotiated
final settlement in this conflict.
Regarding Somalia, we are concerned about the lack
of progress in the efforts to restore normalcy and statehood
to that country. Both the IGAD and the Cairo initiatives
have stalled. However, the cessation of hostilities; the
agreement by the warring factions in Mogadishu to have a
joint administration for the hitherto divided city; and the
reopening of the harbour and airport are encouraging. It is
our hope that the parties concerned will resume serious
dialogue sooner rather than later.
In June this year, the Security Council held an open
debate on children and armed conflict. This is a matter of
particular interest to Africa, where there are horrifying
accounts of atrocities to which children are subject or in
which they participate. We are painfully aware of the
disturbing new phenomenon of “armed labour” in some
parts of Africa and are therefore concerned about the
possibility that children could be involved in these
activities. There is the added dimension of the easy
availability of illegal small arms which, as pointed out
last week by Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen of the
Netherlands, have the potential of destabilizing the whole
region.
Children are our future and all should continue to
support the work of the Secretary-General and his Special
Representative to safeguard and protect them in areas of
armed conflict. To that end, my delegation reiterates the
need for strict compliance by all Member States with the
relevant provisions of international law.
Kenya believes that the adoption of the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was a crucial
step in the fulfilment of one of the main objectives in the
implementation of relevant obligations under the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We believe
that our common objective should lead to complete
nuclear disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States.
It is regrettable that the perceived lack of serious
commitment by nuclear-weapon States to moving rapidly
towards genuine disarmament recently provided an excuse
for others to conduct nuclear tests. There is therefore a
need for security assurances from non-nuclear-weapon
States and, even more importantly, for urgent measures
and renewed efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
We expect the nuclear-weapon States to take their
responsibilities seriously by seizing the initiative towards
the total elimination of nuclear weapons from our planet.
The process of development during the past decade
has been uneven. A number of developing countries
recorded high rates of growth and have been able to
accelerate development. However, many of the developing
countries, especially those in Africa, have made modest
progress. The disparities in economic growth among
developing countries have largely widened. These
conditions have taken place against a backdrop of rapid
changes in the world economy, characterized by the twin
processes of globalization and liberalization, which have
become the hallmark of global economic policy. The
preferential treatment enjoyed by a large number of
developing countries under the Generalized System of
Preferences and other preferential trading arrangements,
such as the Lomé Convention, continues to be eroded.
34

It is imperative for the international community to
strengthen commodity-dependent countries by means of
expanded market access for their products, as well as
support in the development of their technical and human
capacities so that they may actively participate in the
multilateral trading system. In this regard, my delegation
would like to urge the effective implementation of the
Uruguay Round results, especially with regard to market
access for goods and services of export interest to
developing countries.
Developing countries, especially those in sub-Saharan
Africa, have, during the past decade, undertaken many
efforts aimed at attracting foreign direct investment.
Unfortunately, these efforts have not yielded any significant
inflows. International capital flows play an important role
in the process of development. Kenya reiterates the need for
increased access to international financial markets for the
acquisition of finance on concessionary terms by developing
countries. In this context, Kenya attaches great importance
to the convening of an international conference on financing
for development under the auspices of the United Nations.
The liberalization of financial transactions and the
increasing freedom of capital mobility have become
important policy objectives for many countries. The
resultant need to grapple with massive international capital
flows, coupled with the experiences of financial turbulence
and turmoil in some Asian economies, has highlighted the
need to reform the international financial system. On the
Asian financial crisis, my delegation wishes to advocate
measures aimed at the restoration of stability in the affected
countries to avoid serious negative consequences around the
globe.
The external debt problem of low-income developing
countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa, remains
unresolved. The international community is called upon to
take actions aimed at finding lasting solutions to the debt
problem. On official bilateral debt, while we are gratified
at the adoption of the Naples terms by the Paris Club, the
slow pace of their implementation continues to be of
concern. Kenya wishes to urge the Paris Club of creditor
countries to revise the eligibility criteria so as to allow for
the inclusion of all low-income developing countries. The
problem of multilateral debt also needs to be accorded
serious attention, taking into account issues such as
increased concessional finance, debt cancellation, debt
reduction and debt relief.
My delegation would like to express concern over the
declining trend in real terms of official development
assistance over the years. In this regard, Kenya wishes to
call for the expeditious reversal of this trend by donor
countries in line with their commitments in various
United Nations resolutions and with the aim of meeting
the internationally agreed target of 0.7 per cent of gross
national product. The interdependence of the global
economy makes it necessary for those of us in the
developing world to call upon the international
community, including the United Nations agencies,
international financial institutions and multilateral and
bilateral donors, to support the implementation of
strategies for the development of the developing countries
and to give priority to financing for development and
expansion of trade in those countries through mobilization
of new and additional resources.
Kenya welcomes the appointment of Mr. Klaus
Töpfer as Director-General of the United Nations Office
at Nairobi and the elevation of the Nairobi centre to the
level of other United Nations centres at Vienna and
Geneva. As the United Nations proceeds with reform
measures to ensure the efficient use of resources, it is
imperative for the Organization to ensure maximal and
rational use of existing facilities within the system to
minimize waste. As host to the only United Nations
centre in the developing world, we are concerned that
facilities at the Nairobi Office continue to be
underutilized. Kenya would appreciate seeing maximal
utilization of facilities at the headquarters of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United
Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) to try
and reach the capacity-utilization levels of Geneva and
Vienna. In this regard, we wish to thank the Secretary-
General for the various measures he has taken, aimed at
improving this situation. Kenya, however, still urges that
the various General Assembly resolutions on this matter
be adhered to.
We also note that both UNEP and HABITAT need
to be strengthened by streamlining their administrative
and financial management. In this connection. Kenya
welcomes the establishment of the Task Force on
Environment and Human Settlements, whose task is to
provide recommendations for new measures to strengthen
and restructure those two organizations on the basis of
General Assembly resolutions 2997 (XXVII) and 32/162,
while taking into account decisions and recommendations
of the Governing Council of UNEP and the Commission
on Human Settlements. The report of the Task Force
captures the challenges we continue to face in this area.
It states that human demands on the global life-support
system continue to mount as poverty and affluence spread
35

in parallel around the globe. Despite all the efforts made
since the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, held at Stockholm, the environment continues
to deteriorate in many parts of the world. Certain social,
economic and technological trends are exacerbating these
problems. Against this background, it is imperative that
UNEP be strengthened through the provision of adequate
and predictable financial resources to better execute its
mandate, and that more vigorous and coordinated action be
taken to respond effectively to these problems. In line with
resolution 52/220, Kenya urges that energetic steps be taken
on the funding from the regular budget of the United
Nations Office at Nairobi in order to enable it to discharge
its mandate.
My delegation welcomes this opportunity to express its
outrage at and condemnation of the criminal and unjustified
terrorist bombings which occurred simultaneously in
Nairobi and in Dar-es-Salaam on 7 August 1998. Terrorist
acts are by design ruthlessly indiscriminate, and the bomb
blast in Nairobi, which occurred at one of the busiest
locations in the city in terms of human traffic and
commercial activities, was no exception. It has so far
claimed 250 lives, and the death toll continues to rise.
Damage estimated at over $500 million was caused by the
bomb blast.
The bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam brought
mayhem and terror of an untold magnitude to our two
countries, which had hitherto considered themselves secure
and far removed from the threats and dangers posed by acts
of international terrorism. These two incidents not only
make it abundantly clear that nobody is safe or unaffected
by such heinous acts, but also exemplify the expanding
reach and growing menace of the perpetrators of terrorist
acts.
Let me take this opportunity on behalf of the
Government of Kenya to express gratitude for the generous
assistance and support promptly made available in the
rescue efforts by Governments and international
organizations, and by volunteers who came from far and
wide.
Kenya welcomes the General Assembly?s adoption
earlier this year of the International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. In this regard, we wish
to underscore the importance of enhancing international
cooperation to combat terrorism in accordance with the
relevant international instruments. We support the proposal
of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries calling for the
convening of an international conference under the auspices
of the United Nations to formulate an organized and
concerted response by the international community to
terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that Kenya will
continue to participate actively in the work of the
Organization and to bear its rightful share of
responsibilities and obligations under the Charter. As we
enter the new millennium, we should all contribute to the
effort to chart a new course for a reinvigorated United
Nations in a manner that fulfils the vision of its founders
and meets the challenge of our generation and of
generations to come.


On behalf of the Foreign
Minister of Australia, Mr. Alexander Downer, who is
unable to be here because of our national election next
23

week, I would like to extend warm congratulations to you,
Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly
at its fifty-third session. Your country, Uruguay, has given
consistent and strong support to the United Nations, and
your own expertise and contribution to the development of
international law in particular is widely recognized. We
know that we are in good hands, just as we were last year
with your predecessor, Hennadiy Udovenko. Like him, you
may count on Australiaâs support as you carry out your
responsibilities and work to guide us towards constructive
and worthwhile outcomes.
As was very clear from the range of issues addressed
on the first day and again this morning in the general
debate, you take up the presidency, Sir, at a time when the
agenda before the United Nations is more challenging than
it has ever been. Australia is very concerned about many of
those challenges and issues. But today I want to focus
particularly on the subject of non-proliferation and
disarmament, where recent events have brought us to a
crossroads in our attempts to steer the world away from the
threat of weapons of mass destruction.
Although we heard some pessimistic perspectives
yesterday, in Australiaâs view the progress that the
international community has made in the field of arms
control and disarmament over recent decades has, in fact,
been remarkable â€” a trend to which the end of the cold
war lent added impetus. Many bilateral, regional and
international agreements have been concluded, all making
a contribution to making our world more secure. Those
achievements were driven by the realization that we must
work with determination towards a situation where the right
to self-defence of all nations, which is, after all, enshrined
in the United Nations Charter, must be ensured at the
lowest possible level of conventional armament and without
recourse at all to weapons of mass destruction. Events
which have moved against the tide of this progress have
been relatively rare, but when they have occurred they have
stood in stark contrast to the preferred direction of the
international community.
A survey of the progress made to date in the field of
arms control and disarmament points to two key
conclusions. The first is self-evident: there is more work to
be done. The second is perhaps easier to overlook. In the
face of periodic setbacks and challenges, it is vitally
important, and in the security interests of all countries, that
we stay the course on arms control and disarmament, that
we not underestimate or take for granted the value of what
has been achieved to date, and that we maintain the broad-
based political commitment to the norms and institutions
that we have put in place or have yet to build.
A stock-take of progress in arms control and
disarmament over recent decades leaves no doubt about
the positive direction in which the community is moving
in building a global security architecture. In addition to
agreements on conventional arms limitation and
transparency measures, the balance sheet for weapons of
mass destruction is particularly impressive.
A Treaty banning an entire category of weapons of
mass destruction â€” the Chemical Weapons
Convention â€” was successfully negotiated and has
attracted widespread support, and efforts are under way to
strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.
A milestone Treaty now exists â€” the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) â€”
which bans all nuclear-weapon test explosions and all
other nuclear explosions.
Long called-for by political leaders from across all
regions, hard-negotiated in the Conference on
Disarmament and finally adopted by the Assembly by an
overwhelming majority two years ago, the CTBT has now
attracted the adherence of over 150 States, and its
institutional fabric is being steadily established.
The cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation
regime â€” the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) â€” has been extended indefinitely and
has achieved near-universal membership, and agreement
has been reached to commence negotiations to ban the
production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.
In another area, under the strategic arms reductions
process, or START, and consistent with article VI of the
NPT, deep cuts have been made in the cold-war arsenals
of the two largest possessors of nuclear weapons, bringing
closer the day when plurilateral and multilateral phases of
nuclear disarmament can realistically be envisaged.
With START I almost fully implemented, the United
States and the Russian Federation, from which we have
just heard, have more than halved their holdings of
strategic nuclear warheads over the past decade. START
III will bring those same arsenals down to some 80 per
cent below cold-war peaks. It is clearly very important for
START II to enter into force quickly so that planning for
implementation can begin, ensuring there is no
interruption to the nuclear disarmament process.
The international nuclear safeguards systems have
also been strengthened, enhancing international confidence
in the integrity of this regime and its ability to detect and
24

deter non-compliance with non-proliferation obligations.
And finally, a treaty banning landmines â€” what some have
called weapons of mass destruction in slow motion â€” has
been concluded.
On the other side of the ledger, the non-proliferation
and disarmament regimes have had to withstand serious
challenges from the Democratic Peopleâs Republic of Korea
and from Iraq, and the progress towards a universal no-
nuclear-testing norm has been seriously jolted by sporadic
outbreaks of testing, most recently by India and Pakistan.
Unresolved regional tensions in South Asia and the Middle
East continue to bedevil and to thwart the attainment of the
goal of universal membership of the NPT. While being
justifiably dismayed at the disdain of the few for the clearly
expressed will of the international community, we can also
draw encouragement from the strength of our national and
collective responses to these challenges and the resilience
of the regimes when so challenged.
It is vitally important that we stay the course, that we
ensure that such events amount to no more than temporary
deviations from the near-universally accepted norm against
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We
believe that this is in Australiaâs national interest and in the
interest of international and regional security to uphold the
nuclear and other non-proliferation regimes and to continue
to do our utmost to pursue effective measures to reduce and
eliminate the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.
In a strange way, the periodic setbacks to these efforts
serve to underscore the value of the progress made to date.
The very existence of the NPT, and its near-universal
membership, highlights the unacceptability of embarking
upon a nuclear-weapon programme in todayâs world.
Similarly, it is the very existence of the CTBT, and the
near-universal point of view it represents â€” namely, that
nuclear testing should be a thing of the past â€” that
rendered more powerful the widespread disapproval of the
spate of nuclear tests earlier this year. The new ratifications
which the CTBT attracted following the South Asian
nuclear tests were eloquent testimony to the confidence of
the international community in and its commitment to the
no-testing norm.
Australia would like to take this public opportunity to
congratulate Brazil and to welcome it as the most recent
member of the family of NPT nations. We call on that
handful of States remaining outside the NPT to reflect on
the possibility that the 187 countries which have decided
that the NPT provides greater security than the nuclear-
weapons option might be right, and that they â€” the
outsiders â€” might be wrong. Australia also calls on them
to consider how much more seriously their national
security interests would be degraded in a world where the
overwhelming majority of States had not embraced the
nuclear non-proliferation norm.
My country, as I think is well known, has long been
a very firm supporter of universal adherence to treaties on
international weapons of mass destruction. We have
signed all 13 multilateral arms control and disarmament
treaties and ratified all of these bar one; ratification of the
Ottawa Convention on landmines, I am happy to say, is
in progress. Only four other countries can match this
record. We remain committed to making a difference
where and when we can in building consensus on the way
forward, and we will continue to be as diligent and as
creative as possible across the full range of arms-control
and disarmament issues.
Our focus, for those who know us well, is always on
results rather than rhetoric and on making pragmatic
contributions where we can, illustrated by the sort of
contributions that we have made to helping to negotiate
the key Conventions to which I have referred and by our
support for building and strengthening the institutions
which work in various ways to support international arms-
control and disarmament goals â€” institutions such as the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization
(KEDO), the Association of South-East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) Regional Forum and the nuclear safeguards
system.
Experience has shown that these regimes cannot be
taken for granted. The existing regimes need continual
care, maintenance and vigilance to ensure that they
remain effective and that political and financial
commitment to them remains strong.
In the NPT area, for example, further work is needed
to maintain the strength of the Treaty and to go on to
achieve its full implementation and universality. The sixth
Review Conference, in the year 2000, following on the
recent serious challenges to the non-proliferation norm, to
which I have referred, will be one of the most significant
in the history of the Treaty. But even if we have a
distance to go in terms of the Treatyâs value, surely no
one would argue that the world would be a safer place
without it. Nor could it be argued that the negotiation of
the Treaty back in the late 1960s, and the maintenance
and strengthening of the Treaty ever since, has not been
worth the effort.
25

And to those few who persist with the tired refrain
that the NPT is a discriminatory Treaty, we say â€œYes, it isâ€,
and for one excellent reason: the NPT allows a temporary
state of discrimination between the nuclear-weapon States
and the rest of us because, quite simply, the alternative was,
and still is, too horrible to contemplate. We might lament
that because of the cold war the state of discrimination
lasted far too long, but we surely cannot argue that the
alternative scenario would have made the world a safer
place than it is today. For it was a commonplace of
political forecasts in the 1960s, when nuclear weapons were
a legitimate security option for any State, that over 20
States, including my own, Australia, would likely choose to
exercise that option.
And it is surely perverse, when the titanic arsenals of
nuclear weapons accumulated during the cold war are at
last being drastically cut, to act against the tide of
disarmament by pursuing the nuclear option.
Similarly, no one could argue that we would be better
off without a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Its
conclusion, its signature by the five nuclear-weapon States
and its ratification to date by two are major
achievements â€” all the more reason to press ahead with
the establishment of the Treatyâs implementation and
verification structures.
A strong start has been made in implementing the
Chemical Weapons Convention. Its effectiveness is already
amply demonstrated, but we need continued political will
and financial commitment, as well as the additional
ratifications and accessions, for the full security benefits of
the Convention to be realized.
Similarly, the Biological Weapons Convention is
weakened by its lack of verification and compliance
provisions. Work is now under way in the Ad Hoc Group
negotiations to rectify this deficiency. We strongly support
this Ad Hoc Group and are working together with others to
produce an effective and workable protocol to strengthen
the Biological Weapons Convention.
One of the things that we have been doing â€” and
people may have seen the reference to a meeting about this
in todayâs Journal â€” has been to work collaboratively with
many other countries to convene an informal meeting of
Foreign Ministers. This informal meeting is going to be
held tomorrow, here in New York, and it represents the
determination of many countries, at high political levels, to
work together to bring us closer to the goal of an early
conclusion of an effective protocol to strengthen the
Biological Weapons Convention.
In conjunction with the international communityâs
efforts to achieve full implementation and universality of
existing regimes, we also need new, reinforcing and
complementary steps to achieve our overall arms control
and disarmament goals.
Commencement of negotiations for a fissile material
cut-off treaty is an excellent example of how we should
be moving forward in this respect. We see it as the next
logical step after the CTBT, and it is one to which we
hope the Assembly will lend unequivocal support and
encouragement. The recent agreement in the Conference
on Disarmament in Geneva to commence negotiations on
a cut-off treaty demonstrates, we believe, the resilience of
the non-proliferation regime under pressure. It gives the
lie to those who recently pronounced it dead. It is a sign
of the international community reaffirming its faith in the
non-proliferation principle to which it has been committed
for the past 30 years.
I want to refer very briefly to three more subjects:
United Nations reform, human rights and peacekeeping.
Like most other Member States, we want this
Organization to work better. Some progress has been
made. We welcomed the agreement reached on key
elements of the Secretary-Generalâs reform package.
Indeed, we worked hard and quietly to help bring this
about. But it is now very important to ensure that what
has been agreed is effectively implemented â€” that the
task force and the reviews of specific aspects of United
Nations organizations all actually produce concrete
outcomes and that real change does in fact occur.
Critical to the achievement of real reform will be the
resolution of the ongoing problem of non-payment of
arrears in financial contributions. The failure of many
Member States, including the major contributor, to
address this situation hinders all our efforts to strengthen
this Organization.
Also, much of the reform process to us appears to
have been focused on rationalizing and refining structures
and mechanisms and on administrative measures. We
think that the next phase of the reform process has to give
much more structured thought â€” and I believe that this
is what the Secretary-General has in mind in his
presentations to date on the Millennium Assembly â€” to
the kind of United Nations we expect and want in the
decades to come. A thorough review of priorities is
overdue. Although the lofty ideals enshrined in the United
Nations Charter remain as valid as ever, we need to give
serious thought to modernizing the ways in which we
26

give effect to those objectives in terms of operational
activities.
Australia is concerned, like so many others who have
spoken in the general debate to date, that the debate on
Security Council reform has stalled. We have had an
exhaustive â€” but, regrettably, inconclusive â€” discussion
over the last year. It is time now to move beyond general
discussion to serious negotiation of a reform package, one
which will usher in a remodelled Council that is more
representative, transparent and suited to the new
millennium. This will require serious engagement and
flexibility from all involved. My Government remains
committed to finding ways to move the debate forward.
Those of you who were here at last yearâs session of
the General Assembly may recall that Foreign Minister
Downer raised the issue of electoral groups. We continue
to assert that this is an important element in the reform
debate. It is over 30 years since the last significant change
was made to the regional groups. The drawbacks of the
present configuration are becoming more and more obvious:
substantial disparities in the size of the various groups and
an inadequate level of representation available to many
subregions, including Australiaâs own geographical area of
East Asia and the Pacific. We have noted that there is
gathering interest among Member States in this subject, and
we think it is time that we recognized it as an element of
reform which needs to be addressed. Changing the groups
to reflect better contemporary realities and the interests of
the current membership will, we recognize, require careful
thought and patient discussion, and it is simply far too early
to put forward any particular formula. But we suggest we
could begin by discussing the principles on which a new
system could be built and by exchanging views in a
thoughtful and non-acrimonious way on how we might take
the process forward.
The year 1998 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also 50 years
of United Nations peacekeeping. Australiaâs commitment to
upholding the fundamental human rights enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains as strong
now as it was in 1948, when the Declaration was
proclaimed. Members may not know that Australia was one
of the eight countries tasked with the drafting of the
Declaration and that we also played an important role in
ensuring that human rights provisions were included in the
United Nations Charter. Fifty years ago, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights represented a common
statement of goals and aspirations, a vision of the world as
the international community would want it to become.
We still believe in that vision and we see the fiftieth
anniversary as a time for the international community to
reaffirm its commitment to this powerful document.
Similarly, the 50 years of United Nations peacekeeping
gives us an opportunity to recognize how far the
institution of peacekeeping has come, to take stock of the
lessons we have learnt from the past and, perhaps most
importantly, to pay tribute to over 1,500 peacekeepers
who have made the ultimate sacrifice for a safer and
more peaceful world.
Whether we are talking of old problems or new
ones, whether we are analysing setbacks or successes, or
marking anniversaries, the annual stocktake which this
general debate represents offers the opportunity not for a
series of set speeches unrelated to each other and ticking
off a lot of subjects, but rather a chance to remind
ourselves of what the United Nations stands for, to
recognize what has been achieved to date, and to
recommit ourselves for the future to protecting and
advancing those achievements.
I have focused today on disarmament not only as an
area of the utmost priority for Australia and Australians,
but also as one where we believe we can add value. But
the parallels and lessons of disarmament and non-
proliferation hold good for other areas of the United
Nations activities.
I said at the very outset that the international
community was at a crossroads in our attempts to build
an international dispensation in which the threat of mass
destruction had no place. The achievements of the last 30
years in setting in place treaties, institutions and norms to
ensure that we move in that direction are impressive. But
they are not invulnerable. Inadequate verification, non-
compliance, aberrant behaviour, budget fatigue, reform
fatigue failure of political will â€” all of these things have
the potential to unravel and to undermine what we have
built together. Effective arms control, disarmament and
non-proliferation â€” like all the other subjects that are
being addressed from this rostrum â€” require large
investments of political and economic capital. It might be
natural at times, particularly challenging and worrying
times such as we are currently experiencing, to wonder if
it is worth the cost. Brief consideration of the alternatives
is surely enough to convince us that the answer is
undoubtedly â€œyesâ€.
To do otherwise would be to betray not only the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which we are
commemorating, but also the very principles of the
United Nations Charter.


At the outset, Sir, let me
extend to Mr. Opertti the felicitations of my delegation on
his unanimous election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its fifty-third session. We are confident that
under his experienced leadership we will be able to achieve
substantive progress in the deliberations of this Assembly.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a
well-deserved tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Hennadiy
Udovenko, who presided over one of the most eventful
sessions of the General Assembly. In particular, I would
like to express our gratitude for his skilful stewardship of
our deliberations on the reform package of the Secretary-
General, which led to the successful completion of an
important phase in the United Nations reform process.
Last year the Secretary-General presented us with his
most comprehensive and far-reaching proposals for the
strengthening and reinvigoration of this Organization. We
were also able to adopt two landmark resolutions, 52/12
A and 52/12 B, during the substantive part of the fifty-
second session to enable us to reform this Organization
and to introduce new mechanisms, including the Office of
Deputy Secretary-General, to improve its performance.
With these new mechanisms, the Organization has been
able to renew the emphasis on economic, social and
development activities. We are pleased that we have Ms.
Fréchette, an outstanding person with vast experience, as
the first Deputy Secretary-General of the Organization.
Early this year we were able to take further steps to
move forward the reform process, a process that is still
continuing. We would like to thank the Secretary-General
for his timely submission of reports and additional
explanations in response to resolution 52/12 B. We hope
that the untiring efforts of the Secretary-General will push
forward the ongoing process.
As a developing nation, we hope that the reform
process will strengthen the ability of the United Nations
to fulfil its role and functions in the field of development
and to respond effectively to the development needs of
the developing countries. In this respect, the establishment
of a Development Account under the reform process is a
welcome step.
Forward movement in the overall reform of the
United Nations is not matched by similar progress in the
reform of the Security Council. We are somewhat
disheartened over the lack of tangible results on the core
issues in the deliberations of the Open-ended Working
Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on
and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council
and Other Matters Related to the Security Council. I am
sure that every State Member of this Organization shares
the view that the reform of the Security Council is one of
the most crucial aspects of the entire United Nations
reform process. This process will be considered by the
world community as seriously inadequate, and much less
genuine, if we fail to produce a Security Council that is
truly representative of the present membership of this
Organization and can effectively respond to future
challenges. We do not believe that a body that is not
democratic and representative can really look after the
interests of the broad membership in its cardinal task of
maintaining international peace and security.
11

We all have been engaged in in-depth and intensive
discussions of the various aspects of the Security Council
reform for almost five years now. Although we had had
high hopes that the latest rounds of discussions of the
Working Group would produce general agreement on the
more contentious issues related to the Security Council, the
desired goal remains elusive. We nevertheless are gratified
to note that the Working Group has made encouraging
headway in its deliberations on measures conducive to
improving the working methods and transparency of the
Council?s activities. We believe that expansion of the
Security Council in a balanced manner is one of the main
elements of Security Council reform. We are discouraged
by the fact that it is on this core element that substantive
differences among the delegations still remain. These
fundamental differences have proved to be a major obstacle
to our forward movement towards a general agreement on
a common package.
As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, we in
general subscribe to the common position of the Movement
on Security Council reform. However, we wish to make
some observations on certain core issues on which we feel
we should register our position.
First of all, my delegation wishes to emphasize that
the objective of the entire process of Security Council
reform is not the mere addition of a couple of countries to
its permanent membership. Although it has been accepted
in principle that three permanent seats should be allotted to
developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America,
the mode of their identification and selection, despite
various suggestions and concepts on the table, seems
intractable at this juncture and remains unsettled. Myanmar
would view with concern any move or measure biased
towards particular candidates. Myanmar believes that
countries which are capable of contributing to international
peace and security should be permanent members in the
expanded Council. We also favour the expansion of the
Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent
memberships.
We are now being provided with an historic
opportunity to devise ways of selecting new permanent
members for the Security Council.
Although there has been noticeably strong support for
expansion of the Security Council in its permanent
category, we have not been able to translate various ideas
on this question into a viable formula acceptable to all. In
this connection, the idea of rotating new permanent
members, which the Organization of African Unity has
decided to apply to the African countries, is a very
significant concept. There appear to be a growing number
of States attracted to it, and Myanmar is one of those
countries. This is a concept submitted by a particular
region for itself and not meant for export to other regions.
Nevertheless, we should not rule out the concept as one
of the possible options applicable to other regions such as
Asia, in the event that other modalities of selection or
options fail to command enough support. It is vitally
important that expansion of the Security Council in both
categories of membership take place simultaneously for
all regions.
Myanmar is one of the 74 members of the
Organization which has never been a member of the
Security Council. However deficient in its present
structure and undemocratic in its practice the Security
Council may be, its role in the maintenance of
international peace and security and the contribution made
by its members are highly appreciated by the Union of
Myanmar. Myanmar has therefore always given serious
attention to the annual election of five non-permanent
members of the Security Council.
At the same time, to enhance the role of non-
permanent members, now generally looked upon as
peripheral, we could seek a solution by improving the
working methods of the Security Council.
Inextricably linked to the expansion of the
permanent membership of the Security Council is the
veto. Debate on this question has been continuing both
outside and inside the Organization since before the
founding of the United Nations. Nevertheless, little has
been done in the years since then to rectify its injustice.
Given the present state of the discussions, the question
promises to haunt us in the future, regardless of how
strongly we may feel about the practice. While a large
majority of Member States are demanding its curtailment
and eventual elimination, permanent members continue to
be entrenched in their position that they cannot accept any
diminution of their rights and prerogatives, including the
veto.
In the context of extending the veto to new
permanent members, two main views have emerged. One
view argues for its extension to new permanent members.
In their opinion, the new members will be inferior
without the veto. The other view states that the enjoyment
of the veto, as now constituted, by the new permanent
members would entail setbacks. Therefore, to limit the
veto in scope and application for the moment with a view
12

to its eventual abolishment is, in their view, necessary. In
this connection, there have been many sensible suggestions
to curtail the veto?s scope and application. They are very
interesting indeed. The most sensible of them, in our view,
is the idea of curtailing its application to issues that fall
under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In fact,
the provisions of Chapter VII are the rationale of the
Security Council.
Myanmar has consistently held the view that the veto
is unjust and anachronistic and that its ultimate elimination
is the most logical conclusion. However, we accept that it
is unrealistic to eliminate the veto at present. We therefore
consider it unfair and discriminatory to deny the veto to
new permanent members until we can seal the fate of this
unwanted relic of the past. We strongly feel that new
members should be endowed with the same rights and
prerogatives now enjoyed by the current permanent
members.
I have dealt at some length with the United Nations
reform process. I have done so because the effective
functioning of the United Nations in fulfilling its role and
objectives is of critical importance to developing countries
like mine. It is here at the United Nations that developing
countries have sovereign equality with big and powerful
countries. It is here at the United Nations that we have to
maintain and safeguard time-bound principles such as
settling international disputes by peaceful means; refraining
in international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any State; and refraining from intervention in matters which
are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.
These are principles that are of the utmost importance
to developing countries like Myanmar so that they can have
independence not only in name but also in reality. Only a
United Nations that is genuinely democratic will ensure that
these principles are neither diluted nor made flexible to
serve the domestic political needs of big and powerful
nations. In the age of a single super-Power, we are
witnessing too often attempts to use the United Nations as
a political tool of the big and powerful nations.
Too often we are seeing the will of the international
community become synonymous with that of the single
most powerful nation or a group of powerful nations. Only
a United Nations that is genuinely representative can look
after not only the interest of big and powerful nations but
also the interest of the whole United Nations membership,
including the weakest among them. That is why we place
so much importance on the United Nations reform process.
We had high hopes that the end of the cold war
would usher in a new international order. We had high
hopes that resources used for the arms race could be
diverted to development activities. We had hoped for
peace and tranquillity to prevail worldwide. Instead we
see instability and conflict in most regions of the
world — the crisis in the Middle East, the tragedy in
Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Angola, in the Sudan and in
Afghanistan, to cite just a few. In many of these
situations, the United Nations had to spend millions and
millions of dollars in its peacekeeping efforts. This has
caused a serious drain on the resources of the
Organization, whose finances were already in dire
circumstances mainly because of a single Member that
had withheld its contributions for domestic political
reasons.
It would be a truism to say that the United Nations
and its operations are overstretched. Much of its resources
have been diverted from development activities,
expenditures that could be put to more useful purposes for
the promotion of the economic and social advancement of
all peoples.
In spite of this situation, there are those who would
like to use the United Nations to interfere in matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of
Myanmar. The present Government assumed State
responsibility to restore stability and normalcy to the
country when it was in a state of chaos and anarchy. In
the last few years the Government has restored stability
to the country. The insurgency, which has burdened the
country for the last 50 years, is now almost a thing of the
past. Peace and tranquillity prevail throughout nearly the
whole country. These are hard-earned achievements,
especially for a multi-ethnic nation such as Myanmar.
We have attained stability in Myanmar through our
own endeavours. We have not imposed any burden on the
international community. We are therefore very much
distressed that there are those who would like to use the
United Nations to intervene in matters that are essentially
within our domestic jurisdiction. It was the General
Assembly itself which adopted numerous resolutions,
including the resolution on the Charter of Economic
Rights and Duties of States, which reaffirms the sovereign
and inalienable right of each and every State to choose its
economic and political systems. We in Myanmar have
chosen the path of democracy.
It is also an irony that at a time when Myanmar has
openly and repeatedly declared that it is now in the
13

process of building a genuine democratic State with a
market-oriented economic system, political pressure has
been put on us by those who not only would like us to
adopt democracy but would also like to transplant a
democracy according to their own mould. It is unfortunate
that these proponents of a particular type of democracy
would like to use the United Nations to interfere in our
domestic political process. We in Myanmar strongly believe
that the path we have chosen is the right one and is the
most suitable to our tradition, to our culture, to our national
ethos and, most importantly, to the aspirations of our
people. We shall resolutely continue our endeavours to
build a modern, democratic, peaceful and prosperous nation
in Myanmar.
Nevertheless, there are some who entertain concerns
that difficulties relating to human rights practices in one
country could create economic problems in another. In fact,
such transborder human movements occurred among
neighbouring countries in the past for various reasons. The
important aspect is that there must be the will to resolve
and overcome such difficulties through mutual
understanding and respect. The idea of relying on others to
resolve our own domestic problems should be discouraged.
We still live in an unsettled post-cold-war period
where pockets of rising tensions still exist. We are also
confronted with a vast array of major problems awaiting
solutions. Since we last met, we have witnessed
developments that give cause for hope as well as for deep
concern. As the only multilateral forum to deal with the
problems of peace and development, the enhanced role of
the United Nations is now more necessary than ever. We all
have trust in the Organization?s capability to avert
catastrophes of all kinds and to find global solutions to the
major problems of the world. We also have trust in our
capacity to work together. It is imperative to redouble our
concerted efforts if we are to be successful in the creation
of a peaceful and prosperous world order. In this common
task, Myanmar pledges, as a responsible Member of the
United Nations, to continue its strong support for the
endeavours of the Organization to promote the economic
and social advancement of mankind and reaffirms its
commitments to the purposes and principles of the Charter.