The agenda of the General Assembly at
the current session reflects all the complexity of the stage
mankind is now going through, the essence of which is
the transition from bloc confrontation to multipolarity,
economic interdependence and the democratization of
international relations.
I would like to emphasize that during the past year
Russia made its contribution to the consolidation of this
very trend. At the domestic level, this means an
uncompromising continuation of the process of reforming
society. The results of the recent presidential elections in
our country have convincingly proved that Russia has
decisively embarked on the road to the future. The
majority of Russians voted for the continuation of
economic reform, for a State of law and for a policy of
openness and cooperation.
In our relations with the other Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) countries, we resolutely oppose
both the idea of restoring the Soviet Union, an idea based
on the denial of the sovereignty of the Commonwealth
States, and narrow-minded national isolationism. We
stand for the voluntary integration and unification of the
13

members of the Commonwealth and hold that it should not
be isolated from the rest of the world. We wish to ensure,
and we shall ensure, that the CIS will become an important
centre of world economic development and international
stability.
On a wider international plane, Russia is pursuing a
policy aimed at establishing a new world order firmly based
on the equality of all States, justice and universal security.
However, the establishment of such a world order is a slow
process, influenced by both objective and subjective factors.
It is only natural that the end of the cold war provided a
starting point for the transition to achieving a stable and
predictable peace at the global level.
But zones of regional conflict have expanded
drastically. The upsurge of terrorism has caused universal
shock, and the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction is emerging. The rejection of ideological,
military-force confrontation, brought about by the end of
the cold war, clearly proved insufficient to neutralize all
these dangers and risks.
Let us confess, at least to ourselves, that we will not
succeed here unless, first and foremost, we overcome the
inertia of the political mentality. Unfortunately, the
stereotypes that took root in the minds of several
generations of statesmen during the 40 years of the cold
war have not yet disappeared along with the dismantling of
strategic missiles and the destruction of thousands of tanks.
In this connection, I would like to single out three
conditions for the transformation of international relations
during the post-cold-war period.
First, we should see to it that the old fronts of bloc
confrontation are not replaced with new lines of division.
That is precisely why we accept neither the idea of the
expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) military infrastructure to the area of the now
defunct Warsaw Treaty nor the efforts to make that alliance
the axis of a new European system. The enormous
possibilities for economic cooperation and the spiritual
enrichment of all the peoples of the continent can be
realized only through the creation of a genuinely
all-European system of international relations. The
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) Lisbon summit must be an important stage in the
construction of such a Europe.
It is important to stress in general that the logic of a
multipolar world in the twenty-first century should differ
qualitatively from the schemes outlined by Metternich and
Bismarck. The way towards the establishment of a system
of comprehensive security is through learning the skills of
equal partnership between the various “poles”, rather than
through the revival of reflexes of rivalry and of balance
of power.
The threat of new lines of division is appearing not
only in Europe, but elsewhere. The understandable
intolerance of the extremism of certain Islamic groups and
factions must not develop into a categorization of the
Muslim world at large as an enemy of modern
civilization. This is probably one of the pressing
requirements of our day.
Russia advocates resolute opposition to extremist and
terrorist forces. They are especially dangerous when they
enjoy State support, and no effort should be spared to
prevent any State from rendering such support. This
cannot be justified. I believe it is time a universal
convention, covering all States without exception, were
elaborated within the United Nations, denying political
asylum anywhere to persons engaged in terrorist
activities. However, no sanctions should be used as a
means to punish peoples or as an instrument to overthrow
Governments. It is far more effective to offer prospects
for a better future to those who renounce extremism and
accept the norms of conduct by the world community.
The second condition for achieving a durable peace
is the emancipation from a mentality based on concepts
of leaders and followers. Such a mentality is fuelled by
illusions that some countries emerged from the cold war
as victors, and others as the vanquished. But this is not
the case. Peoples on both sides of the Iron Curtain jointly
strove to rid themselves of the policy of confrontation.
Meanwhile, the mentality based on leaders and followers
paves the way directly towards the establishment of a
unipolar world. Such a world-order model is unacceptable
today to the overwhelming majority of the international
community.
Finally, the third condition for the successful
movement towards stable peace lies in the coordinated
activities of the international community. Today, one of
the most important tasks is the settlement of regional and
local conflicts. In this regard, significant progress has
been achieved recently. Peace agreements are being
implemented in Bosnia. Initial important agreements have
been achieved for a durable peace in the Middle East. We
have managed to secure ceasefires in Transdniester,
Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh. The
situation has improved somewhat in the conflict zones on
14

the African continent and in Latin America. But as yet no
breakthrough to a durable peace has been achieved in any
of these hotbeds of tension.
The future of the Middle East is a cause for grave
concern. Russia — one of the sponsors of the peace
process — cannot accept the sacrifice to tactical
considerations and internal political manoeuvres of the first
fruits of the peace negotiations, which were won at such a
great cost. The implementation of the Agreements reached
is the only realistic basis for maintaining the peace process.
The only possible way forward is to advance through
negotiation on the basis of the principle of “land for peace”,
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as
well as resolution 425 (1978), which deals with Lebanon.
It should be clear that the danger of reverting to
confrontation becomes greater as the artificial pause in the
peace process continues. When negotiators are silent, lethal
weapons begin to awake.
We appreciate the peacemaking efforts of the United
States of America, the European Union, France, Egypt and
other members of the international community and we
support an even closer partnership in peacemaking. That is
the most effective way to promote peace-building in the
Middle East.
The Bosnian settlement has entered a new and crucial
stage since the elections of 14 September. The prospects for
a lasting peace have become greater, but the risk of slipping
into a new spiral of hostility and confrontation remains. I
call upon all the Bosnian parties to take full advantage of
the chance for peace created by the international
community. At the same time, the United Nations, the
OSCE, members of the Contact Group and the High
Representative should immediately take a just and balanced
approach to resolving outstanding problems. Assistance for
the social and economic reconstruction of Bosnia and
Herzegovina should be intensified considerably and
conditions created for the return of refugees.
The time has also come to look beyond the horizon of
the Paris agreements. There would seem to be a need for a
large-scale and prolonged civilian peacemaking operation in
which the United Nations and its specialized agencies will
play an important role. The international military and police
presence, to which Russia contributes, should remain a
factor in the peace process for a given period after
December 1996.
The lifting of sanctions against the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Bosnian
Serbs is an indispensable condition for a successful peace
in the former Yugoslavia. I hope that, in the near future,
a Yugoslav delegation will take its place in this Hall, as
it has at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe.
The programme of disarmament, security and
stability for the twenty-first century should become one of
the major axes of transition period strategy. The adoption
of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is one
huge step in this direction. Russia has just signed the
Treaty and we believe that it is of fundamental
importance for all countries with nuclear capability to
accede to it. However, it should clearly be understood that
testing by any country of a nuclear explosive device
before the Treaty enters into force will radically change
the international situation and greatly prejudice the Treaty
itself, and may compel many countries to revise their
attitude to it.
I should like to draw the attention of the Treaty’s
opponents to the fact that it will not only contribute to the
promotion of nuclear non-proliferation, but will
objectively stimulate a gradual transition to nuclear
disarmament on a multilateral basis. That is the purpose
of President Yeltsin’s proposal to conclude a treaty on
nuclear security and stability with the participation of all
the nuclear Powers. We invite interested States to begin
exchanging views on the issue. Our suggestion that
nuclear arsenals be located only on the territories of the
nuclear Powers in question remains current.
The strengthening of the non-proliferation regime for
weapons of mass destruction depends directly upon
reliable prevention of the illicit traffic in fissile materials.
The Moscow Summit of the Eight on Nuclear Safety and
Security, convened as a result of a Russian initiative,
contributed significantly to a solution of this problem. I
call on all United Nations Member States to become
involved in the implementation of the Moscow
agreements.
The rights of an individual should occupy a central
place in any new concept of international security.
Strengthening the international human-rights protection
mechanism could ensure the observance of these rights.
Its oversight and preventive functions should be
consolidated and made more practical. However,
legitimate efforts to ensure respect for human rights
cannot serve political purposes. It is too delicate an area
to be invaded by political speculation and objectives.
15

My comments apply fully to the protection of the
rights of national minorities. The relevance of this problem
is evident in today’s world. The complexity of the
situation — let us be frank — requires a link between the
protection of the rights of national minorities and
observance of the principle of the territorial integrity of
States. Russia is directing its policy at precisely such a link.
My comments also apply to the Baltic States. While
recognizing the sovereignty of those countries and their
territorial integrity, Russia cannot remain indifferent to the
discriminatory practices pursued against the
Russian-speaking populations in Estonia and Latvia. While
acknowledging measures that have already been taken to
improve the situation, we believe that the United Nations
and other international organizations should intensify and
systematize their work for the protection of the rights of
national minorities.
How do we implement this strategy for creating a new
world order? Despite the importance of bilateral relations
and successful regional organizations, the United Nations
remains the principal mechanism capable of ensuring the
transition from a bipolar and confrontational world to a
multipolar and democratic one. In such circumstances, the
significance of the United Nations as a centre for
coordinating the actions of States is increasing. During the
formation of a multipolar system, the United Nations is
called upon to serve as a kind of safety net, minimizing the
destructive effects of the changes and directing them
towards democratic evolution.
The major task of the United Nations remains the
maintenance of international peace and security.
Furthermore, the principal tools available to the
Organization must be political and diplomatic. I remind the
Assembly of this fact because, during the past few years
within the United Nations, a “sanctions syndrome” has
begun to emerge: a desire to apply sanctions and other
coercive measures more broadly and actively, sometimes
ignoring existing political and diplomatic avenues. We are
convinced that the United Nations should take such
measures only in exceptional cases, after all other means
have been genuinely exhausted.
On the whole, there is a need to modernize the United
Nations sanctions mechanisms. Today, for example, no
specific procedure is provided for lifting sanctions, and, as
experience has demonstrated, this is extremely important.
The humanitarian damage caused by sanctions and the
damage to third countries should be minimized.
It is extremely important to emphasize that the
United Nations must be maintained as the sole
Organization that can authorize the use of force. Any
actions of that nature taken in circumvention of the
Security Council must be totally precluded.
The United Nations can and must work purposefully
towards establishing a new global legal framework. To
give impetus to such work Russia has proposed the
holding in 1999 of a third peace conference. This idea
already has the support of a significant number of States.
I believe that the time has come to discuss this initiative
in a constructive and substantive manner.
Past experience shows the need for new approaches
by the United Nations to peacekeeping operations. We
can already discern a pyramid regulating the relations of
the United Nations with regional organizations. Without
the development of such relations the United Nations may
not be able to withstand the burden of peacemaking
actions. I refer specifically to a pyramid, because it is of
fundamental importance to do no harm to the Security
Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace.
We are counting on significantly more attention
being paid by the United Nations to conflicts in the area
of the Commonwealth of Independent States. So far, the
major role in this respect has been played by Russia and
its Commonwealth partners.
In view of present circumstances, Russia calls on the
United Nations to address the Afghan conflict. In that
multinational and long-suffering country, a truly critical
situation has arisen, and we have to do everything
possible to prevent the country from disintegrating. The
Afghan tragedy, like the endless series of internal
conflicts in Rwanda and Liberia, is the most convincing
argument for the development of a United Nations policy
of national reconciliation diplomacy.
To cope with all these tasks, the United Nations
itself must be updated and adapted to these new
conditions. Reform is long overdue, and it is not a single
measure that is required but a process that encompasses
the entire United Nations system. Reform of the United
Nations requires clearly defined goals: first, that it carry
out its activities in a timely manner; and secondly, that its
structure be optimized in order to enhance the
effectiveness of the Organization.
16

A great deal has already been done to implement
reform. The Secretary-General has made a considerable
contribution to these efforts, and Russia supports the
continuation of this difficult and protracted effort.
It is a well-established tradition to conclude statements
before this Assembly by saying that the current session
must play a special role in strengthening peace and that
peoples are expecting us to make decisions. I am confident
that this session of the General Assembly will live up to the
expectations of Governments and the hopes of peoples: that
all of us will take a new step in humankind’s difficult
transition towards a world united in its diversity, a world
that is open to universal economic and spiritual
development, a world that promises security and stability —
a world in which States cooperate on an equal footing. Let
us work together for the sake of this goal.


It is with great pleasure that
I extend my delegation’s heartfelt congratulations to you,
Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its fifty-first session. We are deeply gratified
to see an eminent representative of a brotherly neighbouring
country and fellow member of the Association of South-
East Asian Nations (ASEAN) preside over our sessions.
Your election to this high office is also a well-deserved
recognition of your personal qualities and professional
accomplishments, as well as of the role and stature of
Malaysia in regional and global affairs.
May I also extend our felicitations to your
predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral of Portugal, for
so ably presiding over the historic fiftieth session.
Let me avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute
to Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali for his many
accomplishments, his untiring efforts in the cause of peace
and development and the sagacity with which he is steering
the Organization during these challenging times.
During the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary
of the United Nations last year, we noted a resurgence of
hope and optimism in the international community as we
reviewed the achievements of the world Organization, made
in spite of the many constraints with which it has been
saddled. We renewed our determination to strengthen the
United Nations and rededicated ourselves to the vision of
world peace that inspired its founding, as well as to the
ideals and principles enshrined in its Charter. That act of
rededication was timely and necessary. For, since the
demise of the cold war, the world has been in the grip of
massive changes that have given rise to new challenges
and contradictory trends in international relations. At the
same time, new vistas have emerged and a deepening
sense of interdependence has prompted nations to devise
more realistic and more mutually beneficial patterns of
cooperation.
Yet, while these developments have revived
expectations of a more peaceful and secure world, the
acute reality is that our planet is still far from being a
peaceful place. Violent conflicts continue to embroil many
regions of the globe. Nation States and international
institutions are frantically struggling to adjust to
drastically changed and changing political and economic
circumstances. Weapons of mass destruction still pose a
potent threat of worldwide catastrophe. In view of all
these, it is no wonder that, after a momentary resurgence
of hope, we are again being overtaken by a sense of
frustration and common vulnerability.
The primordial challenge of our time, therefore, is to
devise a more effective system of global governance in
order to manage the demands and the vicissitudes of
globalization and interdependence. As emphasized in a
statement recently issued by 16 Heads of State or
Government, including the President of Indonesia, nations
should rise from their immediate concerns, focus on their
common long-term interests and break new ground.
Constructive initiatives are needed, and multilateralism
has to be reasserted and strengthened.
Not even global cooperation, however, can meet the
needs and expectations of people without a stronger
United Nations to give coherence to such cooperation.
World governance, therefore, in order to be effective and
acceptable to all, must be fashioned with the United
Nations as its principal mechanism and source of
legitimacy. The revitalization of this international
institution through a comprehensive process of
restructuring and democratization of its major organs and
functions has therefore become imperative.
It is of pivotal importance that the General
Assembly, the highest deliberative and decision-making
organ within the United Nations system, should function
effectively. Indeed, strengthening the role of the General
Assembly is a basic premise of the current process of
United Nations reform and revitalization.
9

Just as crucial is the reform of the Security Council so
as to allow it to reflect contemporary realities and to
accommodate the interests and concerns of developing
countries, which comprise the overwhelming majority of the
Organization. It is an anachronism and a gross anomaly that
Europe is overrepresented, Asia underrepresented and
Africa and Latin America not represented at all on the
Council’s roster of permanent members. In our view, new
permanent members should be chosen on the basis not only
of equitable geographic representation, but also of such
criteria as political, economic and demographic weight,
their capability and proven track record of contributing to
the promotion of peace, security and development, both
regionally and globally, and their commitment to assuming
responsibilities inherent to permanent membership.
The Economic and Social Council is now being
revitalized so that it will have a more dynamic relationship
with the General Assembly and other United Nations
bodies. Yet, regrettably, it is still unable effectively to fulfil
its crucial role, notably in helping United Nations Members
adjust to the complex demands of globalization. The
reforms and adjustments that the Economic and Social
Council is undergoing should be further strengthened to
enhance its cooperation not only with other United Nations
bodies but also with such important international agencies
as the Bretton Woods institutions.
All these efforts to revitalize, reform and democratize
the United Nations, however, will come to naught if in the
end the United Nations is paralysed by financial insolvency.
If the current financial plight of the United Nations
continues — and it will continue as long as certain major
Member States refuse to remit their legally-obligated
contributions — there is a real danger that peacekeeping
operations will collapse and many endeavours to maintain
peace and security will be compromised. The very
functioning of the United Nations itself could be severely
undermined and the purposes of the reform process
seriously jeopardized. No organization can be reformed by
starving it. Ironically, the countries that are pressing the
hardest for cutbacks and reforms have themselves refused
to finance the new austerity budget. For more than five
decades the United Nations and related institutions have
been engaged in an immense array of activities that touch
every aspect of people’s lives all over the world. If those
vital statistics, too, must be terminated because of the
Organization’s insolvency, that would constitute an
enormous human tragedy.
Nuclear arsenals of enormously destructive power
continue to pose a threat to all life on Earth. We believe
that the time has come for the Conference on
Disarmament to establish a special committee for
negotiations on a programme of nuclear disarmament and
the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons within a
definite time-frame. In this regard, it is my hope that the
recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of
Justice on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear
weapons will serve as a catalyst towards this end.
The 10 countries of South-East Asia recently made
a substantive contribution to the cause of nuclear
disarmament. During the historic Bangkok summit of the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the
seven ASEAN leaders, together with the leaders of Laos,
Cambodia and Myanmar, signed the Treaty on the South-
East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. ASEAN is now
working for the Treaty’s early entry into force. We hope
that the nuclear Powers will soon endorse the Treaty by
acceding to its Protocol. Thus, with the conclusion of
Treaties for nuclear-weapon-free zones in South-East Asia
and Africa, in addition to the Antarctic, Rarotonga and
Tlatelolco Treaties, a large segment of the southern
hemisphere should become free of the nuclear menace. As
for chemical weapons, I am pleased to inform the General
Assembly that Indonesia is now at the final stage of the
process of ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Another positive development was the signing a few
days ago of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
(CTBT) after two and a half years of arduous negotiations
in the Conference on Disarmament. Indeed, for the past
three decades, the international community unceasingly
stressed the need for such a treaty in an endeavour to
stem the horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear
weapons. The Treaty outlaws nuclear-test explosions by
all States in all environments for all time, ensures that the
ban is effective and verifiable and provides new ground
for the realization of the objectives set by the 1995
Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Having become a reality through broad
compromises, however, the Treaty is still a far cry from
the CTBT long-envisioned by the international
community. It still allows the most sophisticated form of
nuclear-weapon testing: simulation. In a strict sense,
therefore, it is not truly comprehensive, nor does it
directly address the issue of nuclear disarmament. But it
does limit the nuclear-arms race by making it more
difficult for countries to develop or improve their
arsenals. Moreover, humankind cannot afford to dispense
with the CTBT, imperfect as it may be. Our collective
10

experience in the disarmament endeavour has been that, if
we pass over an existing opportunity in favour of a better
one that is yet to be, we suffer a costly delay and possibly
an irretrievable setback. Having signed the Treaty on that
basis, Indonesia fervently hopes that it will eventually be
supported by the entire membership and thereby become an
effective instrument to enable us to move towards the total
elimination of nuclear weapons.
Focal points of conflict still persist in many parts of
the globe. In the Middle East, the peace process is on the
verge of collapse as a highly volatile and explosive
situation in the Israeli-occupied Arab territories threatens
once more to engulf the region in all-too-familiar violence
and bloodshed, which we had hoped had become part of the
past. Israel’s provocative action of opening a new entrance
to the tunnel along the Western Wall of the Al-Aqsa
Mosque has triggered a violent confrontation, resulting in
death and injuries to scores of civilians. Further aggravating
the situation is the unprecedented armed clash between the
Israeli army and the Palestinian police. These are but the
latest manifestations of a rapid deterioration of the situation
due to Israel’s reneging on its previous commitments and
its blatant backtracking on its obligations under the 1993
Declaration of Principles and subsequent agreements.
Israel must be prevailed upon to honour the
Declaration of Principles and its subsequent agreements and
to resume negotiations in earnest on the remaining issues
and the final status of the occupied territories, including
Jerusalem. Once again, we emphasize that progress on the
Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese tracks of the
negotiations, attended by unconditional withdrawal of Israel
from the Syrian Golan Heights and southern Lebanon,
constitutes a conditio sine qua non for comprehensive and
lasting peace in the region.
The recent elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, made
possible by the cessation of hostilities as a result of the
Dayton and Paris peace Agreements, have brought the
country nearer to reconciliation and paved the way for the
creation of durable national institutions.
However, we are concerned that, especially in the
Serb-held areas, the results of the election may lead to the
legitimizing of ethnic separation. It is therefore incumbent
upon the international community to ensure the unity and
territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a
multicultural, multi-ethnic and multireligious society. For
the peace Agreement to be implementable, obstructions to
freedom of movement must be removed and refugees
allowed freely to return to their homes. Bosnian Serb
leaders must yield their illicit control over segments of
the population and territory of the country. The parties to
the peace Agreement must ensure that those indicted by
the International Tribunal are brought to justice.
In the Gulf region, we have recently witnessed
unilateral military action by extraregional Powers
interfering with the internal affairs of a Member State of
the United Nations. My delegation wishes to reiterate its
firm commitment to the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of States, in this case Iraq. Actions that are
inconsistent with these basic norms and principles of
inter-State relations, which are enshrined in the United
Nations Charter, are clearly unacceptable. I should also
like to seize this occasion to urge Iraq to comply fully
with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Earlier this month, almost a quarter of a century of
conflict in the southern Philippines came to a peaceful
end with the signing of a peace agreement between the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the
Moro National Liberation Front, with Indonesia serving
as facilitator on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference Ministerial Committee of the Six. This
positive development, which will bring peace and
prosperity to the southern Philippines, also constitutes
another important step towards the realization of a
politically stable, socially cohesive and economically
progressive South-East Asia that is increasingly able to
deal with its own problems in its own way.
We are now living in an era of globalization and
interdependence, an era replete with challenges but also
full of promise. How it came about is no mystery. It had
been creeping up on us for quite some time, the
consequence of rapid advances in science and technology,
particularly in communications and transport. The end of
the cold war and the dismantling of the barriers of bloc
politics and ideological contention unleashed the full force
of globalization. Since then, global trade and production
have been boosted to new heights while goods, people
and capital are moving from one country to another more
freely than ever. Globalization has thus raised the hopes
of humankind with visions of a new world of
opportunities and more equitable prosperity.
These hopes are not without foundation. In a global
economy that is gradually recovering from recession, the
developed countries, according to the 1996 Economic and
Social Survey, have shown average gross-national-product
growth rates of two per cent. The developing countries
have registered a significant 6 per cent growth while the

economic dynamos of East and South-East Asia have been
credited with a stunning 8 per cent growth. These are the
trade-driven economies that have benefited most from
globalization.
Yet, the apprehensions about globalization are equally
justified. In an external environment over which developing
countries have very little control, globalization could widen
the prosperity gap between the developed and the
developing countries. The fact that globalization can also
lead to disaster was demonstrated not too long ago when
the global operations of financial markets led to instability
and volatility that sent shock waves through the monetary
systems of developing countries. In their efforts to integrate
themselves into the global economy, many developing
countries have found it necessary to make structural
adjustments that too often entail exorbitant social and
human costs. Moreover, globalization has not mitigated and
may have, on the contrary, exacerbated the inequities and
imbalances in international economic relations. Bereft of a
favourable external environment for their national
development efforts, many developing countries continue to
languish in poverty, backwardness, stagnation and even
negative economic growth. Every year, 13 to 18 million
people, mostly children in developing countries, die from
hunger and poverty-related causes. Meanwhile, the
developing countries remain marginalized from the
international decision-making processes that would fashion
global solutions to the global economic problems that afflict
them.
The poignant experience of the past three and a half
decades teaches us that these problems cannot be solved
through palliatives and piecemeal reforms. Since the major
problems of development are global in nature, they can
only be effectively dealt with through a new global
partnership for development involving all countries, of both
the developed North and the developing South, on the basis
of mutual interest and equitable sharing of benefits and
responsibility.
It has been more than two years since the successful
conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations, but the promise of an equitable, transparent
and rule-based multilateral trading system, as embodied in
the World Trade Organization (WTO), has yet to be
realized. Moreover, we are alarmed at the tendency of some
developed countries to resort to a new form of
protectionism in the guise of linking labour standards and
other social and environmental concerns to trade. Such
efforts will not only harm the developing countries, but will
also ultimately debilitate the WTO itself. We therefore call
upon all trading partners to refrain from overloading the
agenda of the first Ministerial Meeting of the WTO in
Singapore this coming December with issues extraneous
to trade. Let us together nurture the WTO as the guardian
of a predictable, non-discriminatory multilateral trading
system and the guarantor of the rights of the weaker
trading partner against unilateral and arbitrary actions by
the strong.
In this context, we share the concern expressed by
the international community at the practice of some
countries of promulgating national laws with
extraterritorial application that adversely impact on the
legitimate interests of other countries. We cannot accept
the imposition of the law of the strong in place of
dialogue and negotiation. No one country, no matter how
powerful, should be allowed unilaterally to regulate the
lives of other sovereign countries.
The biggest single deterrent to development in many
of the world’s poorest countries is the crushing effect of
their debt burdens. Indonesia has long advocated a set of
principles for managing the debt problem, calling for a
“once-and-for-all” settlement of the debt problems of
developing countries, including multilateral debts, as well
as the cancellation of the debts of the most severely
affected, low-income developing countries. In this context,
we welcome and support the joint proposal of the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which
offers effective alternatives for reducing the overall debt
burdens of heavily indebted poor countries to sustainable
levels. While this initiative could be further refined, it is
Indonesia’s fervent hope that, at the forthcoming meetings
of the World Bank and the IMF, this proposal will finally
receive the support that it needs and deserves from the
developed countries. In this context, I am encouraged by
the developments at the IMF meetings in Washington
today.
Social development and social justice remain elusive
dreams for millions of impoverished people throughout
the world. Indonesia shares that dream and abides by the
commitments it assumed at the World Summit for Social
Development in Copenhagen and the Fourth World
Conference on Women in Beijing, both of which were
held last year. We have indeed dedicated ...
We have, indeed, dedicated ourselves to the
proposition that people should not only be the
12

beneficiaries of development but should also be given every
opportunity to become the authors of their own
development. At the same time we should address, through
concrete and concerted international action, the problem of
the global trade in illicit drugs and other forms of
transnational crime. Above all, we must continue to address
the problems of poverty and underdevelopment, and we
must commit ourselves fully to genuine partnership.
This century that is about to end will perhaps be
remembered for both the cruelty of its wars and the
tremendous achievements that it has seen in science and
technology — although it is not for these achievements that
we should be proud of it. To my mind, what makes this
century special is the fact that during this time the human
race truly began to nurture the idea that poverty is not an
inevitable part of the human condition, but that it can be
conquered and wiped off the face of the Earth. We have the
natural resources and the mental and organizational capacity
to succeed at that task. The question has always been
whether we have the political will to do it, and whether we
are concerned and enlightened enough to form an equitable
global partnership for development — for a concerted
struggle against poverty that will give a deeper and brighter
meaning to globalization and interdependence. The answer,
I believe, is largely in the hands of the General Assembly.


It is my pleasure to
congratulate Mr. Razali Ismail on his election to the
presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-first
session, and to congratulate his friendly country,
Malaysia, on his election to that high international post.
We are confident that his political experience and
diplomatic skill will lead to the success of this session’s
deliberations. May I also extend our thanks to his
predecessor for conducting the work of the fiftieth session
of the General Assembly.
On this occasion, we should like to express our
appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts to
enhance the role of the United Nations, and our concern
that his international standing, and his mandate under the
Charter be respected. We also believe that the common
interest of Member States requires the support of his
candidature for a second term.
We live in a region which, because of the injustice,
occupation and aggression it has witnessed for decades,
has had more than its share of victims of wars and
violence. It was impossible to envisage a solution to end
such tragedies and to respond to the aspirations of the
peoples of the region as long as the Arab-Israeli conflict
continued to prevail in the absence of a just and
comprehensive peace.
Many people do not know how many international
endeavours were made, how many meetings were
convened, how many parties contributed, how many
letters were sent and assurances given before agreement
was reached between the parties on the foundations and
rules that made up the terms of reference of the Madrid
8

Peace Conference. It is now five years since the Madrid
Conference was convened and, in turn, bilateral negotiations
set up. Those negotiations survived various periods of
tension, interruption, set-back — and progress. They
generated thousands of pages of records. Both Syria and
Israel agreed on Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan back to
the boundary of 4 June 1967. Negotiations then proceeded
to the other elements of peace — all under the supervision
of the United States of America, and with its participation.
Now, after all those international efforts, which were
unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, a
new Government has taken office in Israel. It has set itself
the opposite course to that of its predecessor, and has
declared “no” three times: no to withdrawal from the
Golan; no to withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands;
and no to a Palestinian State.
To anyone who has followed the declarations and
practices of the Israeli Government since it assumed power,
it is clear that it has not wasted a single opportunity to
underline its insistence on changing the foundations and
rules of the peace process, to attempt to demolish all the
achievements of the past five years and to call for a return
to negotiations from square one, without preconditions —
in other words, without the Madrid terms of reference, in
accordance with the “peace for peace” formula, with the
objective of imposing its fait accompli on the Arabs.
President Hafez Al-Assad has said:
“If this is what the Israeli Prime Minister has in
mind, why should Syria want peace? If peace does not
return the land to its rightful owners, why should we
call for it? Can any thinking person in this world
expect Syria to establish peace with the Israeli
Government while Syrian land remains in Israeli
hands? That is why I say that if Netanyahu stays that
course, I do not believe there is any window for a just
and comprehensive peace in the region.”
One of the dilemmas facing the Middle East peace
process is that certain Israeli leaders are encouraging, rather
than discouraging, extremism in Israeli society. They are
the ones who add fuel to the fire whenever a better climate
for the achievement of peace begins to develop. There are
many examples of such an attitude, which we do not have
time to provide today. It is sufficient to recall that in the
aftermath of the Hebron massacre voices were raised
everywhere, even in Israel itself, calling for the Jewish
settlers, who number less than 400, to move from the heart
of Hebron, which is home to more than 120,000
Palestinians. However, the Israeli Government refused to
withdraw from Hebron, portraying such a move as the
ultimate painful concession.
The bloody confrontations that broke out following
the opening of the tunnel that Israel dug under the wall of
the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as previous deliberate Israeli
provocations and the unjustified escalation of tensions
against Syria and Lebanon over the past few weeks, all
confirm that the Israeli Government did not take office in
order to resume peace negotiations on the basis of
international legitimacy, the Madrid terms of reference
and the “land-for-peace” formula, but rather in order to
launch new negotiations with no terms of reference,
entrenching a fait accompli.
During his European tour, Prime Minister Netanyahu
announced that his decision to open the tunnel was
designed merely to ease the movement of tourists and
spare them a walk of a few dozen extra metres. Imagine
how guilty those tourists would feel if they believed that,
in order to secure their comfort, the Israeli authorities
killed about 80 Palestinians, caused the deaths of 15
Israelis, and wounded more than a thousand people. They
would not, of course, believe it; we do not believe it —
and neither does the head of the Israeli Government, who
revealed his true expansionist intentions when he later
claimed that the tunnel had been there for two thousand
years, and arrogantly declared that it would remain open
for ever.
Perhaps the huge number of innocent victims who
fell in Jerusalem and in the towns of the West Bank and
Gaza have hastened the unmasking of such deceit. In this
way the Israeli Government appears to public opinion as
it truly is: neither desirous of a just peace nor keen to
pursue it. This was reflected in the statements made by
many Foreign Ministers in the Security Council, where
Israel appeared totally isolated, besieged on all sides by
statements deploring and denouncing its action, with the
voices that usually volunteer to defend it dying away.
The Israeli Government’s fuelling of extremism did
not stop there. General Sharon, the Israeli Minister for
Infrastructure, issued a decision last week allocating three
new sites on the occupied Syrian Golan for building 600
housing units. Perhaps a large segment of international
public opinion and some politicians are not aware that
without the financial aid and huge governmental subsidies
given to Jewish settlers, they would not settle in the
Golan, especially as they are well aware that the Golan is
9

Syrian territory, which they will have to leave sooner or
later.
Given my comments, it might be concluded that the
Israeli Government has no strategy for peace but has, it
seems, chosen the path of confrontation. The path of
confrontation, however, is very costly for several reasons.
First, Israel can start a war whenever it chooses, but cannot
end it when it chooses. Israel might wreak considerable
destruction here and there, but it can never destroy the will
of a nation that has deep roots of civilization which spread
all over the world. Many Israelis may be unaware that all
the wars they have fought between October 1973 and April
1996 have gained them nothing except human and political
losses and further international condemnation.
Secondly, the path of confrontation is very costly
because the international community rejects war and
aggression and calls for the achievement of a just and
comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Israel knows that
the Arabs have opted for peace as their strategic option,
including at the summit level. In taking this stand they have
been supported by the summit of the States of the Non-
Aligned Movement, the summit of the European Union and
the summit of the Group of Seven industrial countries, all
of which have stressed the need to adhere to the
foundations of the peace process, relevant Security Council
resolutions and the “land-for-peace” formula, as well as
respect by the parties for the agreements and commitments
reached so far.
Given these facts, it would be unacceptable if peace
were not also a strategic option for Israel — indeed, it
would be a real catastrophe. The achievement of a just and
comprehensive peace, to which the peoples of the region
and the world aspire, requires Israel’s withdrawal from all
occupied Arab land, pursuant to Security Council
resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978).
Syria reaffirms its attachment to the unity of both the
territory and the people of Iraq. Syria rejects any attempt to
violate the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq’s territory
or to interfere in its internal affairs, including the attempt
to establish a so-called security zone in northern Iraq. Syria
also calls for an end to the suffering of the brotherly Iraqi
people, and for a continuation of the implementation of
Security Council resolutions, including a solution to the
issue of Kuwaiti detainees.
With regard to the Lockerbie crisis, Syria expresses its
concern for the human and material harm that has been
done to the brotherly people of Libya as a result of the
continuing coercive measures imposed on them by the
Security Council. Syria reaffirms the statement made in
the final declaration on the issue of the recent Arab
summit, and calls for a response to the initiative
submitted by the Arab League for solving this crisis.
Syria hopes that the United Arab Emirates and the
Islamic Republic of Iran can find a peaceful solution to
the crisis over the three islands in a way that will
preserve good-neighbourly relations and contribute to the
strengthening of security and stability in the region.
Syria expresses its support for the principles agreed
upon by the Governments of Yemen and Eritrea for a
solution to their conflict through international arbitration.
Our position flows from our desire for good-neighbourly
relations between them and our belief in the importance
of re-establishing security and stability in the Red Sea
region.
Syria also expresses its concern at the continuing
deterioration of the situation in Somalia and reiterates the
call of the Arab summit to the leaders of the Somali
factions to achieve national reconciliation and to work
towards the establishment of a national authority
representing our brothers, the Somali people, as a whole.
With regard to Korea, Syria expresses its support for
measures that would guarantee peace and stability in the
Korean peninsula and for the aspirations of the Korean
people to reunification.
The celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the
founding of the United Nations provided an important
opportunity for us to forge a common vision of the future
of international relations. On that occasion, we said that
the crisis facing the United Nations does not arise from
the purposes and principles of the Charter, but rather from
the United Nations decision-making mechanism and the
selective way in which decisions are implemented. We
also observed that the Organization’s serious financial
crisis is, in fact, merely the reflection of a political crisis
that essentially revolves around the identity of the United
Nations and its role in the post-cold-war era.
In the light of those comments, the obvious question
is: Will it be possible to introduce meaningful reforms
into the structure of the United Nations that are
acceptable and satisfactory to Member States? That is the
true challenge, requiring that we all strive to strengthen
dialogue and international cooperation. This will ensure
10

that reforms take place which fulfil, in substance and in
form, the aspirations of Member States.
Today, as we stand on the threshold of the next
century, we are all faced with serious challenges that
require us to create an environment that will allow future
generations to live in peace, security and cooperation within
a system of international relations free from violence and
confrontation. That is the hope of our peoples. This is what
we must endeavour to achieve as we look forward to a
better future, one both more just and more humane that will
benefit all mankind.


Allow me to convey the congratulations of the
Government and the people of Bolivia, President Razali
Ismail, on your unanimous election, which is a token of the
admiration and esteem in which the peoples of the world
hold Malaysia and constitutes just recognition of your
merits.
My delegation is grateful to the President of the
Assembly at its previous session, Ambassador Diogo Freitas
do Amaral, for the remarkable job he did. For the
delegation of Bolivia, it was a distinct honour to serve as
Vice-President of the Assembly under his able guidance.
I wish also to congratulate Secretary-General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali and extend to him our most sincere
appreciation for his valuable contributions to international
peace and cooperation, as well as for his insightful and
untiring dedication to the cause of the United Nations.
Allow me first to refer to some aspects of the far-
reaching structural reform in my country.
Domestically, since 1993, the Administration of
President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada has been
simultaneously transforming the State and the system of
social participation, while also adapting the productive
base of society to enable Bolivia to dynamically meet the
demands inherent to the changes in contemporary
international life.
The Government of Bolivia’s current efforts are
essentially based on the consolidation of participatory
democratic institutions and on the conviction that
economic development must be compatible with care for
nature and the environment — in other words, that this
must take place within the framework of sustainable
development and of respect for ethnic and cultural
diversity, in order to make unity in diversity possible.
My Government’s national plan confers the highest
priority on the struggle against poverty. It strives
vigorously to increase work opportunities and seeks a
better quality of life for all Bolivians, aiming to enter the
twenty-first century with a modern, decentralized,
participatory State. This perspective guides our policies of
grass-roots participation, educational reform, and
capitalization of major public enterprises.
Part and parcel of this landscape of change are our
initiatives in support of children, women and the elderly.
We are working hard to reduce infant and maternal
mortality, to improve levels of nutrition and to provide
assistance to those who most urgently need it. These tasks
are an essential aspect of our effort to improve the lot of
poor families.

My country is proud of its pluri-cultural and
multi-ethnic character, and it is therefore taking important
initiatives for the advancement of indigenous peoples. The
Vice-President of the Republic, Victor Hugo Cárdenas, is
a distinguished representative of Bolivia’s Aymará people.
In the international arena, we are actively pursuing
peaceful coexistence among States and trying to make
international justice a reality.
Our position is based on the principles of equal rights
of States, non-intervention in internal affairs,
non-recognition of territorial acquisitions by force, respect
for human rights and the other fundamental principles of
international law.
The support we give to intergovernmental
organizations, particularly the United Nations and the
Organization of American States (OAS), reflects our
confidence in the potential of multilateral cooperation in a
world that is growing ever more complex and
interdependent.
At the regional level, we are seeking the economic
integration of Latin America and the Caribbean with the
aim of establishing optimal conditions for forging a
hemispheric community and establishing a united presence
as the world opens up and markets expand.
We are seeking the closest possible ties with countries
that share our subregional realities, and we are committed
to merging the various integration processes. That policy
has prompted Bolivia to sign an agreement forming a free-
trade area with the members of the Southern Cone
Common Market (MERCOSUR) — Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay, and Uruguay — to sign agreements aimed at
updating and reinvigorating the Andean Common Market,
made up of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and
Venezuela, and to give effect to numerous bilateral treaties
to enhance mutual complementarity on the basis of our
experiences and the need to foster material and spiritual
exchanges between nations.
The physical integration of the countries of the region
constitutes another central issue deserving priority attention.
We are working actively on the definition of inter-oceanic
corridors, and we attach great importance to the future of
the Plata Basin and the Treaty for Amazonian Cooperation.
With regard to Bolivia’s maritime question, I must
inform the international community, as we have done every
year, that Bolivia has reiterated in various forums its
political willingness to begin negotiations that take proper
account of the interests of all the parties involved and
ensure Bolivia’s sovereign presence with regard to the
Pacific Ocean.
No clear willingness to engage in dialogue can yet
be seen. However, on the basis of contacts on this matter
we can say that, despite historical difficulties and
ultranationalist suspicions, minds are opening and
objective foundations are being laid with a view to
encouraging a timely solution to old problems through the
exchange of ideas, the nurturing of mutual trust, mutual
interest and hemispheric understanding, in the hope that,
before long, brotherhood, equality, justice and the
requirements of international peace and cooperation will
truly prevail.
This year Bolivia had the honour to act as pro
tempore secretariat of the Rio Group, a high-level forum
of consultation and political coordination for an important
group of Latin American and Caribbean States. In that
capacity, Bolivia was the venue of the sixth regular
meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Rio Group
and the European Union, held last April in the city of
Cochabamba. On that occasion we reaffirmed our
readiness for joint endeavours between Latin America, the
Caribbean and Western Europe. The meeting strengthened
ties between the two regions, based on respect for human
rights, the fundamental rights of citizens and the
principles of democracy and political pluralism.
The Ministers highlighted, inter alia, the danger of
drugs and related problems, recognizing the importance of
maintaining political dialogue on this issue at the highest
level and agreeing on the need to strengthen the United
Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP).
The meeting called upon the international community to
deal with the phenomenon of drugs through joint action
based on the principle of global, shared responsibility. To
that end, consideration and support were given to the
proposal to hold a special session of the General
Assembly in 1998 to address this crucial issue.
Worldwide awareness of the need for joint action is
reaching its peak, and Bolivia hopes that the proposed
meeting will lay down positive guidelines to put an end
to the scourge of drugs.
I am also pleased to inform representatives that on
3 and 4 September 1996, again in the Bolivian city of
Cochabamba, the Meeting of Heads of State of the Rio
Group took place, on the occasion of the tenth
anniversary of the creation of that standing body. It was
2

a great honour for my country to welcome such illustrious
guests.
The Presidents and Prime Minister gathered there
noted with satisfaction that our region had made significant
headway in fighting international crime. As evidence of
this, they pointed to the signing in Caracas of the Inter-
American Convention against Corruption, the results of the
Specialized Inter-American Conference on Terrorism, held
in Lima, and advances in the development of a hemispheric
strategy against drugs and related crimes in the framework
of the Inter-American Commission against Drug Abuse.
The Heads of State and Government expressed their
satisfaction at the fact that our region had become the first
nuclear-weapon-free zone through the adoption of the
Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin
America and the Caribbean.
The Final Declaration of the tenth summit expressed
the joint position of the Governments of the region on the
issues of representative democracy and the eradication of
poverty. It placed on record their deep conviction with
regard to sustainable development; it set forth precise
guidelines on regional integration and trade; it expressed a
firm resolve to press ahead in the fight against drugs and
related crimes; it emphasized, in particular, the importance
of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption; and
it reiterated emphatically the crucial importance
Governments, from their position of lofty responsibility,
attached to cultural integration.
My delegation has requested that the Secretariat of the
United Nations circulate the final document of the
Cochabamba meeting to all delegations in the General
Assembly.
With regard to the matter of the extraterritoriality of
national laws, a most sensitive issue for peoples and
Governments the world over, the Rio Group summit
meeting expressed its rejection of any attempt to use a
country’s domestic legislation to impose unilateral sanctions
of an extraterritorial character, as this contravenes the
standards governing coexistence between States, disregards
the fundamental principle of respect for sovereignty and is
a clear violation of international law.
Bolivia is confident that intelligence and fairness will
prevail on this delicate matter and that a solution will soon
be found, in the interest of international coexistence and
economic and commercial freedom for all peoples of the
world.
One of the most outstanding international
developments of our time was undoubtedly the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
With the aim of laying the groundwork for a
hemispheric agenda for sustainable development, several
international meetings, starting with the Summit held in
Miami in 1994, have expressed support for the decision
to hold a hemispheric meeting at the level of Heads of
State and Government in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz
de la Sierra, scheduled for 7 and 8 December of this year.
That meeting will be a new opportunity to set the course
of national and international endeavours for sustainable
development in the light of economic, social and
environmental goals and in reaffirmation of the
importance of obtaining new and additional resources to
finance the plan of action to be adopted.
Bolivia has offered to work its hardest alongside its
sister nations to ensure the success of this major
hemispheric event and is certain that inter-American
solidarity will lead to positive results.
The agenda of the fifty-first session of the General
Assembly contains more than 160 items of particular
interest to the international community. My Government
is prepared to participate constructively in the
consideration and resolution of each of them.
We are concerned with problems of international
peace and security and trust that the United Nations
system will contribute effectively to finding solutions for
the many parts of the world beset by conflicts and war.
As I stated on a previous occasion, Bolivia is of the
view that many conflict situations can be explained by the
persistence of unresolved social and national problems, as
well as by the accumulation of age-old injustices and
resentments; by geopolitical and economic interests that
for decades have been fuelling confrontation from without
and from within; and, above all, by Governments’
inability to cooperate effectively so as to provide timely
and peaceful solutions to the problems of greatest national
concern.
We have participated in the debates on reforms of
the United Nations Charter, and we believe that it is of
the utmost importance to reach consensus in order to
strengthen the multilateral system in the interests of the
world community. We support the positions set forth by
the Non-Aligned Movement in this regard.
3

Difficult international circumstances are making it
increasingly clear that the United Nations needs to be
strengthened, to adapt its structures and strengthen the
Organization as a legitimate forum for the study,
coordination, follow-up and implementation of universally
accepted policies. Accordingly, Bolivia considers it essential
to strengthen the General Assembly, the Security Council
and the role of the International Court of Justice. With
regard to the expansion of the Security Council, we
consider it necessary that Germany and Japan be present as
new permanent members and that three other permanent
members from Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the
Caribbean be selected. The expansion should be
complemented by an appropriate number of non-permanent
members from the developing world. Of course, if
consensus could be reached on other formulas, then other
proposals, such as the one presented by Italy, would need
to be considered.
With regard to the veto, Bolivia shares the view that,
ideally, the international community should move towards
eliminating this device — and, one would hope, in the not-
too-distant future. In the meantime, use of this device
should be strictly limited to actions relating to cases of
threats to the peace, breach of the peace or acts of
aggression referred to in Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter.
Bolivia is greatly concerned about the political and
social situation in many African countries. We express our
solidarity with these countries, as we did to fraternal South
Africa during its times of trial, and we urge the
international community, especially the rich countries of the
world, to cooperate generously and resolutely in order to
cope with the grave economic problems of this continent.
We also express our solidarity with our brothers in the
Middle East. We believe that the time has come to heal old
wounds and frame the terms of a just and lasting peace,
taking into account the need for secure borders for all and
definitively resolving the situation through the creation of
a Palestinian state. A solution must also be found to the
questions of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the
territorial integrity and full sovereignty of all States of the
region must be preserved.
We rejoice in the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina
has embarked upon a new road to understanding, unity and
construction of new democratic institutions.
The brotherly nations of Asia offer us remarkable
examples of the possibilities and opportunities for
accelerated economic development. Their successes fill us
with confidence, and we are certain that they will apply
the same wisdom to finding solutions to the social and
political problems that some of them still face.
We are convinced that the Comprehensive Nuclear-
Test-Ban Treaty, adopted by the General Assembly on 10
September of this year, represents a landmark along the
road to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Bolivia
has signed the papers of accession to the new Treaty and
hopes to complete the constitutional procedures for its
approval and ratification in a relatively short time.
We stress just as emphatically the need to ban the
use and production of anti-personnel mines, which have
been leaving a trail of blood among the peoples of the
world.
The economic and social items before the Assembly
also deserve our keenest interest, since they are among
the essential tasks of the United Nations and of
international cooperation. From our view of the
international scene, questions pertaining to respect for
human rights and democratic development in all countries
are also matters of very high priority.
As representatives are aware, Bolivia has put
forward its candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the
Security Council for the period 1997-1998, the elections
for which will be held during the present session of the
General Assembly.
As a founding member of the United Nations,
Bolivia carries the principles of the Charter deep within
its national spirit and has maintained a policy of
recognition of and support for this universal Organization.
In recent years my country has contributed to the forces
of United Nations Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ),
as well as to the election-monitoring processes in
El Salvador and Mozambique. We are also prepared to
participate in United Nations standby arrangements. With
regard to Haiti, Bolivia had the privilege of presiding over
the ad hoc group of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of
the Organization of American States and contributed
police personnel during the first stage of the democratic
normalization of that sister nation. Bolivia intends to
continue participating in United Nations activities to
foster international peace and cooperation.
In this regard, I am pleased to note that my country
enjoys excellent, long-standing diplomatic relations with
the five permanent members of the Security Council and
4

that it plays an active part in the Non-Aligned Movement,
whose thirty-fifth anniversary we have just celebrated in an
expression of steadfastness in our convictions and in
continued political cooperation.
We share common problems with developing
countries, land-locked States and small States the world
over. Our established friendship with all the countries of
America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania has enabled us
to learn from their important experiences and better to
understand their many problems.If our brother nations
represented here see fit to honour us with their trust,
Bolivia undertakes to place its particular dedication at the
service of the international community in the Security
Council.
As we move towards the end of the twentieth century
and make preparations to welcome a new century and a
new millennium, peoples and nations cannot ignore deep-
rooted trends towards new and untrodden systems of human
coexistence.
In that connection, we must ensure that small States
participate actively in the international arena in promoting
mankind’s dream of making one out of many. That can
occur only if the rules of the game are clearly defined and
implemented and if effective worldwide instruments are
created. It is here, in the existence of and respect for
international law and justice and the institutions that
embody them, that peoples, nations and States can find the
only possible lodestar to guide them. Otherwise, they will
be condemned to new and ominous forms of modern
slavery. That is why Bolivia believes, today more than ever,
in the validity of the United Nations and will work to the
utmost to defending and strengthening it.


The Government of the
Commonwealth of the Bahamas warmly congratulates
Ambassador Razali on his election to the presidency of this
fifty-first session of the General Assembly. His skills as a
distinguished diplomat are well known and, coupled with
the cooperation of Member States, will create the requisite
conditions for a successful Assembly. I wish to assure
him of the full support of my delegation as he presides
over the deliberations of this body.
I wish also to express my delegation’s appreciation
to his predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Diogo Freitas do
Amaral of Portugal, who effectively guided the work of
a most historic and memorable fiftieth session. We wish
also to thank the Secretary-General for his leadership of
the Organization over the past year.
The Bahamas is indeed honoured to have been
elected to serve as a Vice-President of the General
Assembly at the fifty-first session. I wish to thank all
Member States for their support in our realization of this
achievement.
Our deliberations during the last session provided an
opportune environment for stocktaking and evaluation, as
well as the opportunity to look ahead and consider how
we ought to proceed for the next 50 years. The solemn
Declaration which we adopted at the end of the Special
Commemorative Meeting, highlighted the international
community’s continued commitment to the United
Nations and to the purposes and principles of the Charter
by which it is governed. The Bahamas is convinced that
the United Nations remains the primary world body with
the capacity and political will to bring together the
disparate elements of the international community, so as
to face and deal with the challenges of the twenty-first
century.
The Bahamas, like other countries, would wish to
see a strong and effective United Nations. It is our view
that the three-tiered reform process currently under way
in the political, economic and social and administrative
areas represents an important step in that direction. We
must remain diligent and focused in our work so as to
transform the United Nations into a structure equipped for
the fulfilment and support of the myriad demands of
Member States.
In the area of political reform, the Bahamas
continues to support the enlargement of the Security
Council to enable it to become more effective,
representative, democratic and transparent. We are
disappointed that after another year of discussion little or
no progress has been made. We urge all Member States
to exercise flexibility so as to expedite agreement on this
important matter.
1

We acknowledge the need to strengthen the United
Nations system in the economic and social fields. Action
must be taken to reduce duplication and to improve
coordination among the various agencies, including the
Bretton Woods institutions.
There is a clear need for reform and greater efficiency
in the administrative and financial areas. The discussions in
the respective high-level Working Groups established to
examine these areas have been useful. However, few, if
any, meaningful decisions have been taken to date. We urge
Member States to increase the momentum, so as to put in
place the requisite measures to strengthen the efficacy of
the Organization. At the same time, the Bahamas urges and
appeals to Member States to make a more determined effort
to meet their financial obligations to the Organization. We
are aware that the assessment system needs reform. Thus,
we should take the opportunity provided by this session to
agree on an equitable scale of assessment for the next
triennium. The scale of assessment, when finalized, should
take into account all relevant circumstances, including the
special circumstances of archipelagic island developing
countries and the need for the development of a
vulnerability index. The Bahamas also wishes once again to
urge the international community not to use high per capita
gross national product (GNP) as the sole measurement of
capacity to pay when it considers the question of criteria
for the scale. The Bahamas, as well as a number of other
countries, has repeatedly argued that high per capita GNP
is not an accurate measurement of a country’s wealth.
Indeed, it presents a skewed and distorted picture of the
economic reality in my own country when one takes into
consideration the duplication of infrastructure and social
services.
In our efforts to reform this Organization, we must
guard against engaging in reform for reform’s sake. The
restoration of the dignity of the individual must remain our
primary focus. The extent to which we neglect this highest
of priorities is the extent to which human rights abuses and
inequities will abound, giving rise to tensions and conflicts
on various levels, like those that have been witnessed by
the international community in recent years with the
escalation of civil wars and ethnic strife in many parts of
the world. A total breakdown in society is the ultimate
consequence of such activities, which completely
overwhelm national resources and consume inordinate
amounts of international energy which could be far more
meaningfully expended. To achieve meaningful reform we
will have to change our focus significantly. It will require
a shift in paradigms, where issues previously neglected will
have to be brought to the fore.
We need to be reminded that economic and social
security directly influence political security. They must
therefore be addressed in an integrated manner. We must
guard against the additional threat of economic might
being translated into military power, which not only
sidelines and marginalizes the disadvantaged and
dispossessed but also threatens our peace and security.
Our efforts must be aimed at raising the standard of
living and quality of life of the world’s most
underprivileged. Despite impressive economic growth in
many countries, human development continues to move
at a snail’s pace, particularly in developing countries. We
must find a way to balance economic growth and human
development so as to ensure the sustainability and
livelihood of future generations.
We are merely proposing for the international
community what is already in place in the Bahamas. The
promotion and protection of human rights, the
advancement of women, social justice, equality and
development continue to receive priority attention from
the Government of the Bahamas. We are fully committed
to securing a social environment in which our citizens can
live in harmony, prosperity and security, without fear or
intimidation. Many of the recommendations contained in
the plans and programmes of action of the recent world
conferences have already been implemented in the
Bahamas, and we will continue to put in place the
necessary infrastructure to facilitate the implementation of
those recommendations which have not yet been put into
practice.
Our past actions have brought us to a day of
reckoning. The wealth of oceans once deemed
inexhaustible has proven finite. Global warming is no
longer a prognostication, but a present condition. What is
at stake here is the future of our planet and the lives of its
inhabitants. The Bahamas urges that the special session
for the review of Agenda 21 in 1997 be viewed as an
opportunity to re-examine our strategy and to correct past
mistakes. The Bahamas hopes that the special session will
focus on practical proposals and not try to renegotiate
Agenda 21. Definitive priorities and a recommitment to
sustainable development should be set out, taking account
of the recognized peculiar problems of small developing
States and the international community’s commitment to
provide resources to such States.
The Bahamas is concerned that protection be
provided to the fragile and vulnerable economies of small
States in a global community which is moving towards
13

the strengthening and development of trading blocs. The
new international trade regime has put small States at a
disadvantage with the expectation that they liberalize their
markets and open their borders in conformity with the
obligations and commitments of the World Trade
Organization. The playing field must be levelled so that due
regard can be given to the fragile domestic economies of
these States and their macroeconomic position. If the
developed countries are demanding protection for their
sensitive domestic industries, then similar demands by
developing countries with respect to their domestic industry
should not be viewed as a request that is unreasonable or
inconsistent with current international trends.
A review of current events reveals new threats to the
fragile peace process in the Middle East. The Bahamas
urges the parties concerned to make every possible effort to
restore order, to refrain from acts of violence and to
reactivate the peace process, which enjoyed the widespread
support of the international community. We commend
President Clinton for his initiative in inviting Middle East
leaders to Washington for discussion aimed at defusing this
volatile situation and thus, hopefully, restoring confidence
in the peace process.
Ongoing conflicts in Africa are of grave concern. The
international community should see it as its duty to support
measures for the prevention and resolution of conflict in the
countries concerned and to address the economic and debt
burdens that have crippled Africa. Although the African
countries themselves have made strenuous efforts towards
readjustment and recovery, they continue to require the
assistance of the international community.
The Bahamas welcomes the approval by the Group of
Seven of a debt-relief plan for the world’s poorest nations.
The debt-relief measure, which will release as many as 20
of the poorest countries from up to $7.7 billion in debt, will
go a long way towards providing the needed relief for those
countries in their economic growth and development.
The Bahamas is pleased to note that after four years
of devastating warfare free elections have taken place in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. We note the appointment of a
Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the
question of Cyprus, and we urge the parties concerned to
continue to seek a just and viable solution to that conflict.
Violence perpetrated against the people of Cyprus cannot be
condoned.
Notwithstanding the considerable and praiseworthy
efforts of the United Nations and the Organization of
American States, Haiti still remains unstable to a degree
that threatens the stability of the entire region, with a
continuing outflow of immigrants seeking a better way of
life in other countries. The majority of such immigrants
retreat to the Bahamas.
It is regrettable that, notwithstanding the assistance
of the international community, many areas of great
concern remain to be effectively tackled in Haiti.
Attempts to restore democracy are constantly hindered by
the absence of the conditions necessary to support them.
We are therefore left with a population surrounded by
much activity, but one whose daily existence remains
meagre at best. The consequences are predictable, namely,
unrest and increased violence. It is therefore not sufficient
to continue business as usual. The peculiar nature of the
situation in Haiti requires specific, focused and targeted
action that addresses causes and not effects, one in which
initiatives provide direct benefits to the Haitian people.
The Bahamas views with much regret the continued
escalation of the nefarious drug trade, particularly in the
Latin American and Caribbean region. We must double
our efforts to fight this terrible scourge, and it is our hope
that the special session in 1998 will result in a renewed
commitment to fight and eradicate this illicit activity.
We are also of the view that efforts must be renewed
to address the problem of the traffic in small arms, which
has increased to alarming proportions in recent times. We
are particularly concerned about the large number of
small arms that are smuggled into the Caribbean
countries. We urge the countries that manufacture and sell
arms to impose stricter arms control measures and
provide assistance to vulnerable States to reduce this
threat and increase the latters’ capability to combat such
illegal activity.
At the same time, the international community must
voice unanimous disapproval and condemnation of the
unrelenting increase in crime and the rise of terrorism that
is currently confronting the international community. The
Bahamas regrets the failure to reach international
consensus on dealing swiftly with those grave areas of
concern. We urge that every effort be made to implement
the relevant agreements already in force and to put in
place any additional measures required to deal with these
reprehensible activities.
The proliferation of arms, both conventional and
those designed for mass destruction, poses a serious threat
to humanity. Thus, the Bahamas welcomed the recent
14

adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
and intends to add its name shortly to the growing list of
signatories. Anti-personnel land-mines present an insidious
challenge to development and human dignity, and we
should move towards a complete ban on such treacherous
tools of murder.
The Bahamas denounces the continued trans-shipment
of nuclear material and hazardous waste through the
ecosensitive Caribbean Sea. In this respect, the entire
Caribbean Community is in agreement. Indeed in 1992, the
Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community
declared that the Caribbean Sea should be a nuclear-free-
zone for purposes of shipment, storing or dumping of any
radioactive or hazardous substances or toxic waste.
The Bahamas is encouraged by the steps taken by the
second regular session of the International Seabed Authority
at its meeting at Kingston last August, which are geared
towards ensuring the effective functioning of the Authority.
Among the issues before the General Assembly this
session is the matter of the international criminal court. We
exhort the General Assembly to continue its work on this
item so as to enable the convening of a conference of
plenipotentiaries in 1998 to adopt the statute of the court,
thus fulfilling a lacuna in the existing international legal
order.
As members are aware, the Bahamas is an archipelagic
nation which, by any measure, is a small State with a
population of less than 300,000. However, we are a proud
people and strong in our belief in justice for all and in the
inalienable rights of all people, as enshrined in the Charter
of this noble Organization.
It is in this spirit of justice and fair play that over the
past two years we have repeatedly recorded our support in
the General Assembly for the efforts of the 21 million
inhabitants of the Republic of China on Taiwan as they
entreat the Organization to examine the merits of
establishing a committee to analyse in depth the
implications, both now and for the future, of continuing to
preclude those 21 million souls from formal representation
in the General Assembly by way of membership in the
United Nations.
The Bahamas again calls on the nations of the world,
as Members of this august and united international body of
nations, to hear the plea of those 21 million souls on the
island of Taiwan and to consider what is just and right for
them as they too seek to avail themselves of the benefits
of membership in the United Nations.
The next 50 years will be painful and exacting as we
attempt to ensure that the pitfalls of the past are avoided.
Many changes will be required. In effecting change, we
must ensure that it is profitable, for while change is
inevitable, progress is not. The tendency to hold onto the
old way of doing business in the midst of necessary
change will remain our greatest challenge. As we seek to
balance our efforts, it must be remembered that
transformation in one area does not necessarily relegate
all others to irrelevance.
Many reasons have been proffered for the present
state of affairs. Not surprisingly, none of them seem to
involve the proponents. While everyone talks about the
future, few are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to
secure it. Rhetoric boils with urgency, but talks move
slowly, and action is even more halting.
The uncharted waters ahead remain daunting, defined
by bilious seas of unrelenting, sophisticated, transnational
criminal activity, which is tearing at the very fabric of
society. Environmental degradation has exposed the Earth
to permanent damage. Navigation of these seas requires
us to rise above platitudes and empty promises. We must
repudiate the adversaries of peace.
Our evaluations during the past session confirmed
the continuing validity of the United Nations as the
principal mechanism for addressing world concerns.
Despite its uneven accomplishments, the United Nations
facilitates collaboration for the resolution of societal ills,
whatever their origin. The structure and machinery of the
United Nations must be such that we are encouraged to
continue to use the relatively calm chambers of this forum
for our deliberations. This is the only safeguard we have
against countries’ being tempted to take their disputes out
to sea.