I am honoured to convey the greetings of
President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and of the people of
Bolivia to the Heads of State and Government in attendance
at this the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly; to
the Foreign Ministers; to the President of the General
Assembly, Mr. Amara Essy, and to his predecessor,
Ambassador Samuel Insanally, as well as to our dear friend
Vice-President Sergio Abreu; to Secretary-General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali; and to the whole of the international
community, so worthily represented here.
As the highest forum of the peoples of the Earth, this
noble Assembly constitutes the ideal setting to reflect on
and debate the issues of our day.
Bolivia is striving to enter the twenty-first century
while bringing about substantial changes based on the
principles of the United Nations Charter.
During its first year in office, the Government of
President Sánchez de Lozada devoted its efforts to
carrying through the reforms needed to make the State an
effective instrument for our society’s democratic
development, centred on the well-being of our people.
Thus, our reforms have been based on the concept of
comprehensive development, combining human and
economic development, social equity, and sustainable
development.
Now that Bolivia has thus completed the reform of
its political constitution, it is putting into effect changes
that will enable it to consolidate democracy and economic
development, in conditions of fairness and social justice.
My country has embarked on a dynamic policy of
participation by the people, a process of educational
reform, and a recasting of the shareholding and
productive structures of public enterprises through an
innovative concept of capitalization.
During the second phase of its programme, the
Bolivian Government is planning to implement new legal
provisions to increase investment and production in order
to provide more and better job opportunities, and to find
concrete solutions to the problems of poverty and the
marginalization of broad sectors of society. It is in this
connection, in the context of our Government’s policy,
that the participation of the people is of particular
significance.
On the subject of sustainable development, my
country has proposed the holding of a meeting of
Presidents of the hemisphere; that meeting is now
scheduled for 1996 in Bolivia.
The future of our peoples and their material and
spiritual well-being can only be the work of their own
hands, as they are both the subjects and the objects of
development. It is therefore most encouraging that - not
only within our country but within the United Nations
system as well - there is a conviction that a central role
falls to organized participation, both individual and
collective, as an essential factor for change in a creative
and positive direction.
Mechanisms for popular participation will make it
possible to imbue the liberty, independence, sovereignty
26

and progress of nations with vitality and social content. It
is a matter of appraising the role of all social sectors:
workers and entrepreneurs, women, indigenous and rural
communities, the marginalized, the young, the elderly, the
disabled and all those who have the right and duty to
contribute to building a better future.
It is with that conviction that the Bolivian Government
has contributed actively to the preparatory work for the
forthcoming World Summit for Social Development, to be
held in Copenhagen in 1995, and the Fourth World
Conference on Women, in Beijing the same year.
In that same spirit, the International Decade of the
World’s Indigenous People will be inaugurated at this
session of the General Assembly. My country is confident
that the observance of this Decade will be not merely
symbolic, but essentially a practical and concrete endeavour
in its objectives and its scope. To that end, the meeting of
representatives of Latin American and Caribbean
Governments, grass-roots peasant organizations and
international agencies, held in the Bolivian city of
Cochabamba last June, framed a series of recommendations
to be included in the strategy of the Decade. Those
recommendations have also been brought to the attention of
Governments and the United Nations system. We hope to
receive a prompt and positive response so that the
legitimate claims of indigenous peoples will not be lost in
the labyrinths of international bureaucracy or the oblivion
of another 500 years of solitude.
Resolving age-old problems surely calls for a great
capacity to understand the values, customs and ways of life
of other cultures. Bolivia hopes that the International
Decade of the World’s Indigenous People will provide an
opportunity for the international community to fully
understand the topic of the coca leaf, a form of vegetation
traditionally grown in Andean regions. The cultural and
medicinal uses of the coca leaf need to be re-evaluated in
order to distinguish it clearly from the social problems
brought about by the abuse of one of its derivatives in the
developed countries, which creates a growing demand
associated with an international cycle of crime.
Let me take this opportunity to declare formally, once
again, that the Government and the people of Bolivia are
earnestly and firmly committed to international efforts to
find the best-suited mechanisms to guarantee the success of
the policies delineated within the framework of the changes
recommended in General Assembly resolution 48/12,
adopted at the last session.
Less than two weeks ago, on an initiative of
President Sánchez de Lozada, the most representative
organizations of Bolivian society, together with the armed
forces and the police, took a historic step when they
debated the problems of the coca leaf in a framework of
pluralistic participation and cooperation. The main
conclusions of that meeting, which I take the liberty of
summarizing to this great forum of nations, stressed the
urgency of combating drug trafficking through a world-
wide strategy of shared responsibility; the need to adopt
as a primary goal the fight against the dire poverty
affecting over two-thirds of Bolivia’s population; and
support for initiatives aimed at the comprehensive
development of coca-producing areas.
Bolivia is grateful for the international community’s
willingness to draw a perfectly clear distinction between
the positive aspects of the native coca leaf and the grave
harm done by dint of the external demand for cocaine.
We trust that this positive attitude will make it possible in
the near future to address this problem without prejudice.
But the international agenda at the end of the
century encompasses other equally complex issues that
have recently been brought to light by the end of the cold
war, although their roots can be traced back to centuries
of accumulated injustice.
The Republic of South Africa has given the world
invaluable lessons in its struggle against apartheid and for
democracy. My country is joyful at the outcome of that
process and, on behalf of Bolivia, I welcome President
Nelson Mandela to the General Assembly.
Deeply moved as well by news of the tragedies in
Rwanda and in other regions of the world, Bolivia
expresses its solidarity with peoples which, through
violence and catastrophe, are showing us what we sow
when problems are not resolved in timely fashion,
problems such as hunger, poverty, mass migration, the
various forms of injustice inherited from colonial times
and the plundering and lawless acts carried out even
today by Powers large and small against other States.
Bolivia welcomes the advances achieved through
dialogue in the Middle East, and we trust that in the
future dialogue will become the principal instrument in
dealing successfully with international disputes and
conflicts. The Bolivian people hopes for a just and
lasting peace between Israel, Palestine and the Arab
peoples. May the deliberations of the General Assembly
contribute to consolidating that process.
27

The situations in the former Yugoslavia and in other
areas are a direct consequence of actions in the service of
misguided geopolitical interests aimed at social and political
destabilization of foreign territories, We hope that the
senseless repetition of such practices, which have had such
woeful effects in Central Europe, Asia and Africa, will not
lead to similar disasters in other regions. Furthermore, the
Government and the people of Bolivia condemn policies of
"ethnic cleansing" in the strongest terms and call upon the
international community to take resolute and clear measures
to put an end to those actions and to punish those
responsible for them.
Latin America stands unconditionally in support of
democracy and against the illegal use of military means and
force, in accordance with the recent declaration of the
presidential summit of the Rio Group, the resolutions of the
Organization of American States and of the United Nations
and the numerous proclamations of Parliaments and popular
organizations from all over the continent.
Democracy, of course, cannot be left undefended.
Bolivia has had the bitter experience of long dictatorial
interruptions in its institutional life. Consequently, Bolivia
stands today with the people of Haiti and its legitimate
Government, and it supports the immediate return of
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the restoration of the
democratic regime.
History has shown that peace, justice and respect for
the principle of self-determination can be guaranteed only
when there are consolidated democratic institutions capable
of defending and promoting human rights. Solidarity
cannot be left at the rostrum. My country reiterates its
willingness to help, within its available means, in the
process of restoring Haitian democracy to the extent the
legitimate Government of that country deems our help
useful.
The ending of the cold war must apply also to Latin
America and make it possible, through dialogue and
understanding among the parties concerned, for Cuba to be
reintegrated into the inter-American community.
All States of the world must contribute to ensuring
peace, brotherhood and the timely solution of problems that
are as yet unresolved. To that end, action must be taken to
enable peoples to develop, since economic backwardness
and its social effects are at the root of the crises and
conflicts we face.
We therefore attach high priority to the themes of
the "Agenda for Development". Economic
complementarity, the transfer of technology, trade, the
opening up of economies, foreign investment and co-
operation should be our instruments for strengthening
solidarity and friendship among peoples and
Governments.
In this spirit, Bolivia strongly supports Latin
American unity and subregional integration, hemispheric
agreements, and any opportunity that may present itself
for exchanges between nations.
These aims - cooperation and complementarity,
friendship and solidarity - must serve as the basis of the
new international order. For that reason, the observance
of the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter in
San Francisco should provide an opportunity to make
substantive progress in adapting the United Nations to the
new realities and demands of the world community.
Governments on all continents must demonstrate the
ability to save future generations from the scourge of war.
We must make human rights, individual and collective,
fully effective. International justice must become possible
and be assured, and social progress within the broadest
concept of freedom must be promoted.
In international relations in the third millennium, law
must cease to be the instrument of the stronger, serving
to entrench injustices, and must become the sole and
effective means of resolving disputes, rectifying the errors
and excesses of past generations as often as may be
necessary.
On the subject of respect for the rules of inter-State
relations, Bolivia welcomes the entry into force of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and
welcomes the fact that 1998 is to be the International
Year of the Oceans. Convinced that recovering our
country’s access to the sea is an inalienable right of
Bolivia, the Government of President Sánchez de Lozada
is working to secure for the Bolivian people, during the
current decade, a real solution to the unjust land-locked
situation with which it has had to contend for over
100 years. My country believes in the force of
convictions, in the force of international solidarity, in the
force and the evolution of law, and in the possibilities of
friendly negotiation with a view to overcoming disputes.
Democracy must find clear expression in inter-State
relations. Participation by countries large and small in
28

the resolution of issues that affect all of them must be
equitable and not, as is sometimes the case, mere words.
This presupposes, among other things, a change in the
organization and composition of the Security Council so
that with its permanent and non-permanent members, it will
be representative of the realities and requirements of
appropriate participation, reflecting the obvious emergence
of new centres of power in different parts of the world. It
will also be necessary to strengthen the role of the General
Assembly and to restore the United Nations its central role
in the resolution of the major economic problems of the
planet, a task which, for the present, remains the exclusive
preserve of the super-Powers.
The right to development is an objective necessity,
although exercise of the right still seems remote for the vast
majority of the world’s population. We must assume an
effective commitment to give that right the same priority
treatment as is given to the human rights of individuals.
If the present generation is unable to defeat growing
poverty and secure employment opportunities for the
already vast global army of the indigent, it will be
impossible to ensure the peace and well-being in the
developed regions of the world. Population growth, mass
migrations and globalization will take their toll, with a
negative effect on the dignity, the peaceful co-existence,
and the hopes of all mankind for a better life.
Over the centuries, the Andean peoples of Bolivia
have wisely been guided by three fundamental rules which,
in the Quechua language, are: "AMA SUA, AMA
LLULLA, AMA KHELLA", meaning "Do not steal, do not
be idle, do not lie".
If those three rules were also applied in relations
between States and nations today, they would have to be:
"Do not unjustly exploit the fruits of your neighbours’
work. Do not complacently enjoy your splendid life-style
amid universal poverty. Do not make promises of
solidarity and understanding that you are not prepared to
keep."
I feel sure that the ability of all of us to live together
would be infinitely enhanced were we to be guided by such
rules.


I would be disloyal to the
feelings of the delegation of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea if I did not from the outset join with the preceding
speakers in expressing my best wishes to you and
congratulating you on your well-deserved election to the
Presidency of this General Assembly. I wish you every
success and assure you of the complete cooperation of my
delegation. Please convey my congratulations also to the
other members of the General Committee, whose work is
not always given due recognition.
We also commend the work accomplished by
Ambassador Samuel Insanally of Guyana, who presided
over the last session of the General Assembly. And I wish
to express special appreciation to His Excellency
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, our distinguished Secretary-
General, for his deep commitment to the search for viable
solutions to the problems and difficulties confronting
mankind today.
This forty-ninth session of the General Assembly is
being held at a time when the international community is
expressing its concern at the bleak panorama that the
world offers us, and more than ever is proclaiming its
right to preserve peace and the socio-political and
economic stability of the world. This session of the
General Assembly, therefore, must not disappoint these
pressing aspirations of the human community, which has
every reason to continue to consider the United Nations
as the hope of mankind.
It is illogical and inconceivable to the peoples of our
world that after the fall of the ideological borders that
shaped the bipolar world, we should again be confronted
with new burdens and contradictions. My country is
deeply concerned at the negative effect of the wave of
violence in many parts of the world today. In record
time, we have seen evidence of many sources of tension
and conflicts that wipe out many years of United Nations
efforts. Everywhere panic and uncertainty prevail, owing
to the intolerance and arbitrariness that are real threats to
world peace. None the less, it would seem that we all
want to close our eyes and act as though we did not know
the causes of this instability. For the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea, the causes are all interdependent:
poverty, inequality in relations among nations,
unemployment, ignorance, and political and religious
intolerance.
This forty-ninth session of our General Assembly
must therefore reflect deeply in order to find a global
solution to these common denominators of all our
countries. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea wishes to
reaffirm here, from this rostrum, the confidence that it has
placed in the United Nations and our conviction that this
Organization is the ideal framework for resolving the
difficult, delicate and complex problems confronting the
international community.
In this grim international panorama, my country, the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea, is endeavouring to
preserve internal peace and political stability, and to
maintain a strict policy of good-neighbourliness and
cooperation with the other countries of central Africa. In
this framework, we have been strengthening the internal
socio-political structures that make it possible to
coordinate an integral, democratic system that guarantees
the individual and collective freedoms of our citizens.
Indeed in 1991, the Government began a transition on the
basis of established constitutional provisions and has been
establishing the political environment conducive to
political pluralism and a multiparty system. A number of
14

legal regulations now govern the exercise of pluralist
democracy in my country. May I mention, among them:
the law of political parties, the law of freedom of
association and expression, our trade union law, the law of
freedom of the press and printed matter, the law of
freedom of religion, the law of complaints and petitions,
and all the other laws that govern the electoral process.
Therefore, the fact is that Equatorial Guinea today is
a free, democratic and independent country where peace
and stability prevail. With only 400,000 inhabitants, we
have 14 political organizations that operate freely and
democratically and constitute the pluralist expression of our
peoples. None the less, as everyone knows, there are some
who, because of their concealed interests, have attempted,
and continue to attempt, to thwart the will of some of our
political leaders in our democratic process. This is the root
cause of the disinformation campaign that is being waged
against my country.
Allow me to dwell a moment on this point. Because
my country is being subjected to a systematic international
campaign of disinformation through certain very well-
localized media. Hence a negative image is being projected
of my country, in total disregard of the efforts that have
been made since 1979 by His Excellency Mr. Obiang
Nguema Mbasogo, the President of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea, to restore the respectability and honour
of my country after 11 long, bloody years of the
dictatorship of Macias Nguema, who was overthrown
without anyone helping us. Regarding this campaign of
disinformation, there is a saying that I would like to
reiterate here: “The truth is one, but untruth is manifold”.
Everything depends on the colour of the lens through which
one looks. There are some who, because of their own
unconfessed interests prefer to continue to look at us
through a dark lens; but we ask the international community
to assess our actions in a neutral and objective way, without
allowing itself to be influenced by third parties. We ask
that you view us through a clear lens that will allow you to
see the reality.
Please do not misunderstand me. We are not against
the contribution of the international community to the
efforts of the people and Government of Equatorial Guinea
for democracy and the promotion of human rights and
freedoms, but we do believe that these objectives cannot be
achieved by promoting and instigating ungovernability,
anarchy and civil disobedience in the developing countries.
We see some countries now using the international
community’s demand for respect for human rights and
democracy to mask activities that are aimed at
subjugating developing countries such as Equatorial
Guinea. None the less, we would like to point out that in
the course of this year, certain donors, such as France and
Spain and the United Nations Development Programme,
have made a positive contribution to our democratic
process by giving moral, technical and economic support
to our efforts to consolidate democracy. They have done
excellent work.
We believe that the escalation of domestic tensions
in many African countries today has a common cause:
political intolerance, fuelled and promoted by foreign
intervention in a country's domestic jurisdiction.
However, as the saying goes, “The master’s eye makes
the horse fat” — in other words, however they may be
assessed or distorted from outside, the realities in each of
the countries in those regions exist independently of the
interpretations placed on them.
We in Equatorial Guinea believe that development
and democracy can be promoted only in an atmosphere of
peace. We therefore feel that the United Nations should
put emphasis on its efforts at preventive action rather than
those designed to restore peace or serve as a buffer.
Measures such as the dispatch of evaluation or inquiry
missions to individual countries can be more effective in
avoiding conflicts like those currently taking place in such
fraternal and friendly countries as Angola, Rwanda,
Liberia, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and so on.
Interventions after the fact have been shown to have
limited effectiveness.
Some peace-keeping missions and operations in
certain conflict areas have also undergone a qualitative
change. It is therefore urgent to redirect the mechanisms
through which the Organization functions and adapt them
to the changes in today's world.
We believe that in an increasingly complicated
world, and with limited resources, international relations
must be complementary. In this sphere the role of the
United Nations has become even more decisive. It is
hardly useful for some to attempt to monopolize the
solution to the world's problems if we do not all feel
sincerely involved. As an earlier speaker in the general
debate noted, there can be neither peace nor justice if
discrimination exists in international relations.
My country hopes that the new world scene will
witness the implementation of procedures for sincere
international cooperation on behalf of those countries that
15

need it most, those countries that are struggling not just to
maintain the quality of life but often for their very survival.
The poverty and misery in all the countries on Earth calls
for action by others to remedy their plight.
United Nations efforts in the maintenance of
international peace and security contrast with the limited
progress achieved in economic and social development.
The global chasm separating rich and poor is steadily
widening. We need the solidarity of the industrialized
countries, on mutually agreed terms, if we developing
countries are to find a definitive solution to our external-
debt problem, the burden of which is another obstacle to
progress and greater social development.
It would be most promising if agreement could be
reached on the mechanisms to solve this economic,
financial and socio-economic problem. One such
mechanism might be a re-examination of the idea of
converting external debt into investment and into projects
with proven social impact.
The preservation of the environment and the fight
against drug trafficking are questions that demand
consideration. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration established
the foundations for some universal principles for the
protection of the global environment and efforts to control
pollution and combat desertification and deforestation.
Reality, however, called for new initiatives, which
culminated in the Rio Conference on Environment and
Development. We hope that the results of that Conference
will be of benefit to all and help ensure mankind's the
sustainable development and future well-being.
I should, however, like to emphasize the obligation of
the developed and industrialized countries — which bear
the greatest responsibility for the deterioration of the global
ecosystem — to those countries that today are being asked
to make the sacrifice of limiting their legitimate right to the
use of the riches nature has bestowed on them. Fitting
compensation must be forthcoming, particularly through the
funding of alternative projects and technological
cooperation.
Within its modest financial means, the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea has been and remains ready to take
action to improve its national environment as its
contribution to the task of preserving nature throughout the
world. The Government of Equatorial Guinea is also
giving its constant attention to the struggle against the
AIDS pandemic, and, thanks to the deep awareness of the
people of Equatorial Guinea and the assistance we are
receiving from international agencies, we shall spare no
effort to control it effectively. From this rostrum we are
appealing to the international community to join us in our
efforts to speed and support work in these sectors.
For all those reasons, we hope that the United
Nations will continue to enjoy the full support of all of us
in working to achieve a better world in the coming 50
years.


I should like to congratulate Mr. Essy on his
election to the presidency of the forty-ninth session of the
General Assembly and to express our appreciation of the
great responsibilities he will be shouldering, together with
the Secretary-General, in preparing for the commemoration
of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United
Nations.
I also take this opportunity to salute, on behalf of my
country, Syria, the long and arduous struggle of Africa
against the system of apartheid in South Africa. This
struggle, recently crowned with the establishment of a
united, democratic and non-racial Republic of South Africa,
is a triumph not only for Africa but also for humanity and
the international community as a whole. It is especially a
triumph for the United Nations as it is one of its most
important achievements. This great accomplishment will
remain forever a source of inspiration and optimism for us
all that all forms of racism are inevitably doomed to
extinction.
The commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the
United Nations will raise fundamental questions about the
role and achievements of the Organization and the
obstacles it has faced and continues to face. In our
opinion, the most important question will focus on the
reform and restructuring of the United Nations to make it
more democratic and thus more capable of responding to
the major changes that have taken place on the
international scene, particularly since the end of the cold
war.
It seems that none of the Member States objects in
principle to the idea of introducing reforms to the United
Nations, including the enlargement of the Security
Council’s membership. However, the question that could
take years before any agreement is reached on it is that
which relates to the nature of the required reforms, the
criteria for choosing the new members of the Security
Council and, first and foremost, the right of veto:
whether to expand it or abolish it altogether from the
Charter.
More than two-thirds of the current Members of the
United Nations did not participate in drafting the Charter
of the United Nations, either because they were
languishing under colonialism or because, after
independence, they were thrust into the cold war, for
which the United Nations was an important arena. In this
context, developing countries pose the following question:
If colonialism is truly a thing of the past and if the cold
war is indeed over, what other reasons are there to
prevent the developing countries from actively
participating in the restructuring of the United Nations
and from taking the share they are democratically entitled
to in the Security Council’s membership?
We hope that the answer will not be a negative one
and that the cold war will no longer be waged in new
innovative forms and under different pretexts. That
would be in no one’s interest and would serve no useful
purpose, either in the short or in the long term. Today’s
world, North and South, East and West, faces
unparalleled challenges that require the cooperation of all
Member States in facing up to them. Those challenges
may initially appear to be of a minor nature, but they may
well grow and spread like a plague.
In many continents, dozens of civil wars have been
spawned from the womb of the cold war. The causes of
these wars are many: national, ethnic, religious and
tribal. Their victims are hundreds of thousands, while the
refugees and displaced persons they uproot are in the tens
17

of millions. The number of those who live below the
poverty line in the world today has reached almost one fifth
of the inhabitants of the globe. About 90 per cent of those
live in developing countries.
A phenomenon that seems truly odd and surprising is
the spread of organized crime to countries where such a
phenomenon was never known before. Organized crime
now has its own international networks, its secret
transnational organizations are estimated to be in the
thousands. Such organizations have the ability to break the
most rigorous of laws by all the illegitimate means
available to them, including the smuggling of nuclear
components and their scientific designs.
The indispensable international cooperation needed to
meet such varied challenges cannot achieve the desired
results if certain of its principal parties take to evoking the
spirit of the cold war by calling up the past instead of
looking forward to the future or if they act under the
influence of some racist background that inspires their
propaganda or election campaigns. It is no exaggeration to
say that such elements and subjective motives have already
played a role in obstructing international efforts to address
a number of serious crises, particularly those in which
human suffering has reached levels that defy description
and stymie the imagination, as in the cases of Bosnia,
Somalia and Rwanda, not to mention Afghanistan, where
the shortsightedness of the conflicting parties has
overwhelmed all wisdom and prudence.
On the other hand, however, we must commend the
United States of America for resorting to political dialogue
with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and with
Cuba instead of continuing to pursue its policy of
confrontation against them. These are positive measures
which we hope will continue and expand to encompass
other issues, in the forefront of which is that of Lockerbie
disaster and Libya, so that political dialogue will become
the most appropriate option inresolving disputes between
States. In the same vein, we hope that the United Arab
Emirates and Iran will be able, through amicable dialogue,
to reach a satisfactory solution to the question of the
disputed islands that would preserve the rights of both
parties and consolidate friendly relations between the two
neighbours.
Syria was one of the first States in the Middle East to
sign, as early as 1968, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In doing so, Syria was
prompted by its conviction that the possession of such an
overkill weapon by any State in our highly sensitive region
would be a major cause for concern, not only to the
peoples of the region, but also to the world at large. At
the time, Syria expected that its early signing of the NPT
would be an incentive to Israel, sooner or later, to sign in
turn and would dissuade it from possessing nuclear
weapons. Regrettably, we were to discover that our
expectations were not justified. Israel, as yet, has neither
adhered to the NPT, nor agreed to open its nuclear
installations to international inspection.
Once again, and on the occasion of the Paris
Conference on Banning of Chemical Weapons in January
1989, Syria took the initiative to call for making the
Middle East a region free of all nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons of mass destruction within the
framework of the United Nations. However, Israel did
not respond to this call nor did it respond to any of the
calls of the United Nations, the International Atomic
Energy Agency or those of the Conferences of the Non-
Aligned Movement or the Islamic Conference.
This is an issue that has become of the utmost
importance and gravity, particularly in the light of the
ongoing peace process in the Middle East. It is not
acceptable for any one party to have a privileged or
exceptional position at the expense of others in regard to
sensitive and decisive matters that relate to regional
security which ought to be based on co-equality and
mutuality.
The forthcoming conference of the States Parties to
the NPT scheduled to review the extension of its tenure
which is about to expire, affords a rare opportunity for all
States in the region to demonstrate their peaceful
intentions.
The accession by all States in the Middle East to the
NPT is a vital step towards transforming the Middle East
to a region free of all weapons of mass destruction. From
this rostrum, and in this context, the Syrian Arab
Republic calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and to
place its nuclear installations under the inspection of the
Atomic Energy Agency so that the States of the region
may be able to agree to extending the Treaty. This, if it
is done, will be an important step towards the creation of
a climate of confidence which in turn will contribute to
building peace and security in the Middle East.
Three years have passed since the convening of the
Madrid Conference and no just and comprehensive peace
18

in the Middle East has materialized. This is a fact that
cannot be cancelled out by the achievement of some
progress on some tracks.
Our region is the cradle of human civilization and
monotheistic religions. Succeeding generations of its
peoples have become accustomed to repel invaders. It is
time for the region to enjoy peace and stability. This
cannot be achieved through half-measure solutions or
through the trickle down of droplets of peace, nor can it be
achieved through agreements which encroach on the
national dignity or compromise the interests of a nation.
Syria accepted the initiative of the United States in
which the United States undertook to work towards the
achievement of a just and comprehensive peace in the
region, on the basis of international legality, Security
Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978)
and the land-for-peace formula including a political solution
to the question of the national rights of the Palestinian
people. The United States also confirmed that in pursuance
of its previous positions rejecting the extension of Israeli
law to the Syrian Golan Heights, it did not agree to the
annexation of any part of the territories occupied in 1967.
In the light of the complexities of the Arab-Israeli
conflict and the suspicions of the Arab parties regarding
Israel’s intentions, Syria took two important decisions
which complemented one another.
The first decision was our commitment to coordinate
with the Arab parties participating in the peace process.
This was prompted by our conviction that the other Arab
parties would benefit from such solidarity as well as from
the position of Syria and its various potentialities. We are
also convinced that the comprehensiveness of the solution
would be a guarantee to all parties should they respond to
the requirements of peace.
The second decision was that the peace option was a
strategic one. By so doing we misled no one: neither our
own people nor any of the others, as to the truth of our
intentions, so that they may act accordingly.
In this context, we were absolutely convinced that
these two important decisions were going to be in the
interest of all parties participating in the peace process.
These two decisions, we believed, would also facilitate the
task of the two sponsors, the United States and the Russian
Federation, in achieving full peace in the region in return
for full withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied in
1967.
Regrettably, the peace process did not continue on
the right track towards achieving its desired objective.
There are many reasons for that. However, we see no
point in elaborating on them now. Nor do we want to
digress and elaborate on the current position of those
parties which have strayed from Arab coordination.
Suffice it to refer to an essential point that was revealed
in their public statements. The point is that they have
now begun to question the usefulness of what they have
done. The fact is they have become unable to contribute
to the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace in
the region.
In fact, the optimistic trumpetings by Israel about
great progress achieved in the peace process is not true,
except from Israel’s point of view. The agreements
reached so far have achieved nothing but what Israel
wanted from the land-for-peace formula while the Arab
party that signed those agreements with Israel still awaits
Israel’s response to its demands.
The most important characteristic of Syria’s policy
under the leadership of President Hafez al-Assad, is the
reconciling of principle and reality. Principles that cannot
survive on the ground are bound to decline. On the other
hand, living the reality without adhering to one’s
principles leads to decline.
Syria wants peace, and realizes that all parties have
a stake in this peace. It realizes also that peace has
objective requirements, and it is prepared to fulfil those
requirements that are agreed upon. Syria means what it
says and adheres to what it means. The land-for-peace
equation must be implemented in both its parts. The
return of the entire Golan is not open to compromise,
unjustified delay or a misplaced testing of intentions. On
this basis, Syria supports a genuine peace - a peace that
lives and flourishes without artificial obstacles or arbitrary
conditions. Putting on the peace process a greater burden
than it can bear does not help to achieve peace; rather, it
poses a threat to the process. The peace process should
not be weighed down with issues that fall outside its
framework.
19

It is regrettable that, as a result of its strong influence
on the media, Israel has managed to distort information and
turn facts on their head, to the extent that those in some
circles of Western public opinion now claim that Syria used
the Golan Heights to launch offensives against the Israelis,
whereas, in fact, the opposite was the case. Israel uses the
pretext of security in an attempt to justify its occupation of
the Golan Heights and its refusal to withdraw therefrom.
It was Israel, not Syria, that started the armed clashes in the
period between 1949 and 1967.
United Nations records and resolutions on this matter
adopted by the Security Council during that period will
demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that Israel was
responsible for opening fire for the purpose of expelling
Syrian farmers from their land and preventing them from
reaping their harvest. It was natural that the Syrian side
should have defended its own citizens and land by
responding every time they were fired upon.
The records to which I have referred are supported by
memoirs published by senior United Nations officers who
were entrusted with the task of supervising the truce
between Syria and Israel during that period. Among those
officers are General Odd Bull and General Karl van Horn.
Hills and mountains are no obstacle to today’s sophisticated
weapons. In any case, the Golan Heights are directly
opposite the Galilee Mountains, which are within Israel and
are higher than the Golan Heights.
Anyway, whether or not the Israeli public are aware
of the truth of what I have just said, the United Nations
Charter states the basic principle of the non-acquisition of
territory by force. This principle has been confirmed in
many Security Council resolutions. The current peace
process cannot be completed without Israel’s withdrawing
from the entire Syrian Golan and southern Lebanon.
We believe that our position is just. We have a right
that we shall never relinquish. As President Assad has
said,
"Relinquishing any part of a nation’s territory
amounts to relinquishing the entire country and its
people’s free will."
We want a just peace that restores everyone’s legitimate
right - the comprehensive peace after which the peoples of
the region aspire and under which they will be able to
enjoy security, stability and prosperity.


At the
very outset I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Amara
Essy, on your election to the high post of President of the
General Assembly at its current session. I view this as a
sign of recognition of your country’s authority in the
international community.
The United Nations is approaching its fiftieth
anniversary, and the entire world has grown older along
with it. What is the world like nowadays? Has it become
better? Has it become wiser? And, most important, what
will the present generation leave behind to its successors?
No State, no people can be indifferent to these
questions. Here in the United Nations we must find
answers to them. This is particularly important for
Russia. We are trying to understand what kind of world
we want to live in, and exactly what kind of world we
should spare no effort to build.
The new Russia was born in 1991 as a democratic
State. Its birth was witnessed by the entire world.
For several years now we have been engaged in a
tremendous, and painstaking task, the essence of which is
to remove the legacy of totalitarianism and the cold war.
Freedom has come to Russia. The people have
obtained fundamental civil rights long denied them.
Profound economic reform is in progress in Russia. A
free market economy is being put into effect. Thus, each
of our new success stories reinforces Russian democracy.
Russia has decisively drawn a final line under the
Second World War. Our forces have been withdrawn
from Germany, Central Europe and the Baltic States. Of
its own accord, and at great effort, Russia has removed
any threat to the security of other States.
Furthermore, our country, through its own efforts,
has promoted the end of confrontation in Europe, setting
up new security structures there, not only for a select
number, the chosen but for all. The Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) should
become a powerful driving force in that process.
1

We expect there to be more understanding on the part
of our partners with regard to the problems of security in
Russia. We count on their ability to overcome the old
suspicion inherent in a world divided into blocs, suspicion
that is now unjustified.
Russia is undergoing changes and regaining its
identity, but in every respect it remains a great Power.
Russia is ready for equal cooperation within the framework
of the international community, which should in turn accept
an active, open Russia.
We would like nuclear weapons and other kinds of
weapons of mass destruction to cease to exist. Efficient
control over the non-proliferation of the technologies for
their production is imperative.
Russia needs a world without wars and armed conflicts
and without environmental calamities. We favour the
development of international economic ties without
discrimination. Russia stands for a world capable of
combating terrorism, drug-trafficking and other types of
international crime.
To make such gigantic changes possible, efforts by all
the Members of the United Nations will be required. There
is no room for either soloists or supernumeraries.
Naturally, we cannot do without new relations between
the two major nuclear Powers. I am convinced that the
entire world has a vital stake in the establishment of a
strategic partnership between Russia and the United States.
I am ready for a serious and fruitful dialogue with President
Bill Clinton, who today gave an optimistic forecast of our
interaction.
Russia’s economic and foreign-policy priorities lie in
the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), the former Republics of the Soviet Union. Russia’s
ties with them are closer than the traditional relations of
good-neighbourliness; we have, rather, an extraordinary
blood relationship. In virtually all the CIS countries today
there is a growing desire for closer cooperation and a
genuine, rather than merely proclaimed, integration. Its
foundation will be good will and mutual benefit.
Attempts to use the contradictions between the CIS
States for selfish ends are extremely short-sighted.
Conflicts in a number of CIS countries threaten not only
the security of our State, but also security at the regional
and global levels.
We are acutely interested in the active participation
of the world community in settling these difficult
problems. However, the main peace-keeping burden in
the territory of the former Soviet Union sits is being
borne by the Russian Federation.
Our efforts have not been fruitless. A solid truce
has already been established in Moldova. The peace
process in Georgia is developing; hope of stopping the
bloodshed in Nagorny Karabakh is already emerging and
initial agreements on Tajikistan have also been reached.
Everybody knows how difficult life is for millions of
Russians in newly independent States; it is not a time for
complacency. Once they were in their own home, but
now they are guests - and not always welcome ones.
We cannot remain indifferent to the fate of our
countrymen. I an not referring to special rights or
privileges. But the people in Russia will not understand
if I do not state here and now that the democratic States
have to prove through their actions that guaranteeing
human rights is indeed the cornerstone of their foreign
policy. And in this area neither a selective approach nor
double standards are permissible.
Two years ago the General Assembly adopted the
Declaration on the rights of national minorities. At this
session we propose to come to an agreement on the
principles of that Declaration being embodied in the
legislation of all United Nations Member States.
Russia makes no distinction between settling its
problems and the problems of others. That is why we
particularly highly value what is done within the United
Nations.
The world is now at a crossroads. The tragedy of
the struggle of two opposing blocs is finally over. The
delicate balance based on power, fear and mutual
intimidation has disappeared for ever.
But the world is still not stable. The changes that
are taking place entail not only hopes for a better future,
but also profound anxieties.
It is not only Russia that is trying to respond to the
emerging challenges. To a certain degree, the united
Germany, Japan, the United States and other countries of
the West face the same problem. The same applies
equally to many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin
America.
2

The fundamental changes in international relations are
accompanied by the emergence of new problems. More
and more countries see strengthening the effectiveness of
inter-State structures as the solution. At the same time, this
does not always prevent an increase in the activity of those
who hold separatist and nationalist aspirations.
A veritable floodgate of regional and local conflicts,
national, tribal and religious enmity and economic, social
and political confrontations has been opened wide. The
bleeding wound in Bosnia has not healed. It is a tragic
paradox that in the wake of the cold war in Europe hotbeds
of war have flared up there anew.
The unprecedented tragedy in Rwanda resounds
painfully in the hearts of all people. This has proved to be
a defeat for us all.
But let us look around. Are there not other parts of
the world where more refined and civilized unlawful actions
are being taken against national and cultural minorities?
Are their rights and their security not threatened? Have
racism and anti-Semitism disappeared? Is there no longer
any discrimination against those who are categorized as
non-indigenous?
When aggressive nationalism is made into State policy
it is a grave danger for all mankind.
These problems are all the more urgent today because
the threat of local conflicts has not waned.
Each of these conflicts could cause a veritable
avalanche of geopolitical changes all over the world.
The cold war is over, but its material infrastructure -
the mountains of arms and the military-industrial complexes
of the developed countries - still remain. The spread of
nuclear weapons could make them into instruments of
terror. Huge amounts of weapons have been dumped onto
international markets. Unfortunately, vested interests
frequently prevail over the awareness of the danger implicit
in this process. In fact, this is nothing but an arms race
that has simply been transferred to the developing countries
through the market.
The worsening ecological crisis and the proliferation
of AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) and other
dangerous diseases are also realities at the close of this
twentieth century.
The lessons of history can be learned only with great
difficulty. Obsession with the idea of supremacy is
extremely dangerous. The pathological failure to accept
something different has time and again resulted in
numerous ethnic and religious problems and conflicts.
The fear of open political territory wind up once again
with a "cordon sanitaire" or "iron curtain".
Let us be honest: equality, partnership, mutual
benefit and cooperation still remain, to a large extent,
words used to cover State egotism. Such a situation
indicates an urgent need to develop a solid system of
security on the basis of principles and mechanisms of
cooperation on the part of everyone, and a need for the
reform of international institutions. Such a system should
be in keeping with the new conditions that now prevail
and should function under the auspices of the United
Nations.
As a specific contribution towards the establishment
of such a system, I would propose the following
measures.
First, we must speed up the negotiations on the
conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty.
Russia advocates the signing of this treaty next year,
when we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the United
Nations. We should also give thought to further steps to
limit Russian and American strategic nuclear weapons in
order to make it possible eventually to renounce the
inherited "balance of terror" based on mutual nuclear
deterrence.
Secondly, we must extend non-proliferation measures
to cover weapons of mass destruction. Next spring, when
the Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons takes place, it is
essential to adopt a decision to the effect that the treaty
should be open-ended and of unlimited duration. No one
has the right to deny this. In this context, we believe that
the non-nuclear-weapon States will need to be given
additional and more precise security assurances. We
propose the holding in the near future of a special
meeting of the Security Council, at the Foreign Minister
level, to coordinate and adopt a new resolution on
so-called "positive" security assurances.
Thirdly, we should launch a multilateral debate on
the issues with regard to the regulation of the
international traffic in weaponry and military equipment.
Moreover, there is an urgent need for all nuclear-weapon
States to participate in the process of the control and
3

limitation of nuclear weapons. We propose that a treaty on
nuclear security and strategic stability be elaborated by the
five nuclear-weapon States. Such a treaty could provide for
cessation of the production of fissionable materials for
military purposes, for prohibition of the recycling of
fissionable materials for weapons purposes and for further
elimination of nuclear weapons and the reduction of their
means of delivery.
Fourthly, it would be advisable to open discussions on
regional programmes to strengthen peace and security.
Regional security systems are being formed even now: I
am thinking particularly of the treaty on collective security
between the members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) of the former Soviet Union. We believe that
at the present stage that the United Nations could direct its
efforts towards coordinating the process of building up
regional security systems.
Finally, the experience of recent years demonstrates
that the renunciation of the arms race is a complicated and
highly expensive process. Conversion of the military
industry gives rise to extremely difficult economic and
social problems that have to be dealt with, particularly as
they relate to the elimination of chemical and
bacteriological weapons. In this context, it is important to
pool the efforts of the international community. Such
cooperation among States would help to enhance the level
of mutual trust. In 1996, it might be possible to hold a
conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, on
international cooperation in the field of conversion.
Implementation of these measures will enable us to
substantially stabilize the situation in the world. However,
from the long-term point of view, these measures will not
be sufficient.
The former purely military understanding of the
concept of "security" has today become obsolete. The
range of problems faced by mankind is much wider than it
was. The modern definition of security is inseparable from
the notion of stable development.
The world is urgently in need of a strategy for the
twenty-first century - a strategy of mutual responsibility.
The most important points of reference for such a strategy
could be defined as follows:
- Stable economic and social development, not
only for individual regions and States but,
indeed, for the entire planet as a single entity.
People themselves must assume the
responsibility of carrying out this immense task;
- The renunciation of diktat by the powerful
vis-à-vis the weak. Any country, whether large
or small, should be aware of its responsibility
for the maintenance of order based on law and
morality;
- The unconditional recognition of human rights,
including the rights of national minorities. In
view of the great diversity of cultures,
traditions and the historical experience of
countries and peoples, fundamental human
rights are a universal value and we cannot
permit them to be devalued;
- Strengthening the ecological security of
mankind. The world is now facing a most
serious crisis because of the deficit of
resources, deterioration of the natural
environment, and many other negative trends.
Common sense and the instinct for survival tell
us to stop exploiting our depleting resources to
the detriment of nature, society and mankind.
Russia supports the programme on Global
education and observation to preserve the
environment. Moreover, this programme is
entirely consistent with the strategy of shared
responsibility. We intend to participate
actively in its implementation.
At the same time, I should like to emphasize that
only a profound understanding, on the part of each
participant in international cooperation, of his or her
individual responsibility can engender a common sense of
responsibility for the world situation.
To paraphrase a well known expression we could
say that the United Nations is a good idea whose time has
finally come. I should like in particular to note the great
personal contribution of the United Nations Secretary-
General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to the cause of
advocating peace and settling regional conflicts.
If the United Nations is to achieve maximum
effectiveness in the twenty-first century, it must undergo
a well-thought-out reform.
Obviously, changes will be required both at
Headquarters and in the functioning of the specialized
agencies. Also, it will be impossible to avoid changes in
4

the Security Council, which should remain sufficiently
compact and an effective functioning body. This is
especially important because, according to the Charter, the
Security Council bears primary responsibility for supporting
and maintaining world peace and security.
We have to strike a new balance of law, morality and
force in world politics. The United Nations could play a
decisive role in these efforts in accordance with the Charter.
Russia stands ready, as provided in Article 43 of the
Charter, to enter into an agreement with the Security
Council to make available national military contingents for
United Nations operations. If a sufficient number of other
States follows this lead, then it could be possible to go
ahead with the realization of the concept of United Nations
stand-by forces.
The Military Staff Committee has already been
formally in existence for several decades. According to the
Charter its function is "to advise and assist the Security
Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s
military requirements". Let them finally do just that.
The pertinent task now will be to work out a strategy
of peace-keeping, conflict and crisis prevention and, if
necessary, operations on peace enforcement.
Through specific actions, Russia has shown support
for United Nations efforts aimed at setting up efficient
mechanisms of response to humanitarian emergencies. We
stand ready to cooperate with all countries anxious to
reinforce the capability of the world community to produce
a rapid humanitarian response.
Because the problems we are increasingly
encountering are multifaceted, they require adequate
solutions. The question is not about who should enjoy
more rights - the United Nations, the regional structures or
States. The future world system can be truly durable only
if it is possible to find efficient and effective mechanisms
to address problems at all levels - national, regional and
global. Sharing responsibility will make it possible for the
United Nations to remain flexible and a pragmatic and
effective structure and enable it to focus its efforts on the
solution of the genuinely key problems faced by mankind.
Russia believes that these are all fundamental issues
that have a direct bearing on the fate of the world
community. Both the authority of the United Nations and
the future of world politics as a whole will depend on the
way these issues are dealt with.
People have always sought stability, happiness and
prosperity. But history provides evidence of the fact that
these goals cannot be achieved with the help of brute
force alone. Once again we become acutely aware of this
fact now that we are approaching a sacred date for
mankind: the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the
Second World War and the restoration of peace.
Let us remember with gratitude those who gave their
lives for this great victory. Let 1995 become the
universal year of commemoration of the victims of the
Second World War.
For the sake of those living and those who have not
yet been born, we must preserve peace and establish
stability on our planet. Mankind should finally feel that
it is at home, a home which is both kind and reliable.
Our civilization has always been varied. It is
precisely in the variety of cultures, traditions and values
that the possibility of development is basically found.
At this time, we have reached a stage when different
interests and aspirations of peoples can be achieved only
through cooperation among them.
The world community should make every possible
effort to ensure that its policies are embodied in the new
thinking about the influence of States, national pride and
patriotism.
The United Nations is a child of the world. Fifty
years ago when the Second World War was in progress,
it became abundantly clear that the future of mankind is
to be found in the realm of cooperation and tolerance
rather than aggression and hatred.
Cooperation and tolerance are prerequisites for the
next century.
This is the most important condition for there to be
a worthy future for our planet.
This is a unique opportunity that has been given to
the human race.
I believe that the United Nations, in fulfilment of its
general responsibility, will not allow us to pass it up, and
I hope that the great dream of peace to which all peoples
and States aspire to will take its due place in the life of
our planet.


It is a special pleasure and
honour for me to extend to my brother, Amara Essy, my
delegation’s warmest congratulations on his election as
President of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth
session. He is a highly esteemed and valued friend to
many of us, and we can rest assured that his vast
diplomatic and political experience, coupled with his
proven leadership qualities, will guide this Assembly
through a very productive and successful session.
The Assembly is also most grateful for the
exemplary and skilful manner in which Ambassador
Insanally successfully conducted the affairs of the
forty-eighth session during his tenure as President.
We must also recognize the dynamic and resourceful
manner in which the Secretary-General has guided the
Secretariat of the United Nations during this period of
momentous internal and worldwide change. That the
ordinary citizens of the world and its many poor have a
humane and sensitive advocate in the halls of power of
the United Nations is a great stabilizing factor. We wish
the Secretary-General well in his unending efforts to bring
peace and development to all corners of our troubled
world.
As our Organization moves towards its fiftieth year,
there is an air of concern for the state of the world, its
24

people and the United Nations itself. Building upon our
emphasis last year on the rights of the individual, the
purview of the international community has expanded to
encompass the right of the individual to a better economic
and social life. The population Conference at Cairo
highlighted the pressures of population on economic growth
and development, and marked specific areas for action, with
targets and goals, and next year’s Copenhagen conference
on social development will explore widespread poverty and
unemployment, and the critical issue of social integration.
We have come to realize that these problems cannot be
solved in isolation by any of the principal actors - -
individuals, States or even the international community.
Only by cooperating and working together to reinforce the
special attributes of each can we begin to arrest the
pervasive social disintegration, endemic conflict and world
disorder that threaten our security and our future.
Fortunately, in the United Nations, whatever its limitations,
we have a truly international Organization at the centre of
all these issues, which needs only proper use and
reinforcement to reverse these corrosive trends.
As we review the developments of the past year in the
light of the triumphs and tragedies experienced by the
world body and by the international community, the picture
which emerges is one of persistent conflict and pervasive
poverty. Happily, some perennial points of antagonism,
such as South Africa and Palestine, have witnessed
extraordinary developments. For some, the dramatic accord
between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and
Israel, negotiated entirely by the Palestinians themselves,
continues to be viewed with a measure of astonishment.
True enough, the accord will not satisfy everyone, and
conditions remain on future progress, but after so many
decades of having a minimal voice in their destiny and of
paltry changes in their condition, the Palestinians have
made the first real breakthrough towards a Palestinian State.
Efforts towards political and democratic institutionalization
and administrative refinement, accompanied by widespread
political participation and empowerment, are evolving
slowly and may demonstrate to the international community
the level of support lent by Palestinians to the direction
implied by the accords. The substantial international
assistance pledged and envisaged to underwrite the requisite
stability and progress must be forthcoming in order to meet
the urgent needs of the Palestinian governing authority, and
to achieve the goals of a functioning and efficient
Palestinian entity.
The Palestinians have suffered long and hard under a
harsh and often difficult occupation, enduring numerous
false starts and misdirected illusions. They have now
embarked on the road to self-determination and should
receive the total support of the international community.
But the eventual realization of a full Palestinian State
must be clear, and any measures tending to render the
occupied territories merely "self administered" Bantustans,
supplying labor to Israel’s more developed economy,
must be resisted by all means.
Not only the continent of Africa, but the entire world
must take pride in the remarkable progress unfolding in
South Africa. Under the inspiring and extraordinary
leadership of President Mandela, South Africa has
become an exemplary model for the international
community of national reconciliation and unity. During
the recent dramatic period in its history, South Africa was
likewise fortunate to have had a visionary in the person
of Mr. de Klerk, who was aware of the role of timing and
recognized the need for change. While there have been
many players in the struggle against apartheid, certainly
none are more deserving of praise and recognition than
the majority people of South Africa themselves. South
Africa cannot fail to appreciate that all of Africa, and in
fact the world, shares in its joy. We can only urge
President Mandela and his country to continue to work
together to advance the task of restructuring South Africa
so that it truly realizes its undoubted greatness.
By now the world is painfully aware of the fate of
Rwanda, torn apart by sheer hatred and intolerance, by
leaders bent upon exploiting ethnic differences for selfish
gains. Employing all manner of fear, intimidation and
propaganda, they succeeded in stirring up nearly an entire
people to turn against another, until the eventual human
carnage, in so compressed a time span, was no doubt
unequalled in human history. Even now, the intransigent
leadership of the millions of suffering Hutus, eking out a
bare existence in the volcanic soils of eastern Zaire or the
other surrounding countries, refuses to acknowledge the
plight of their people, dissuading them with threats and
violence from returning to their country. Their actions
cannot be pardoned; the perpetrators of this insane
episode must be brought to justice and punished.
Otherwise, their implacable goal of rearming and
returning one day to the battle field promises a long night
of recurring horror for Central Africa. Regrettably, by
paying no heed to the early signs of pending troubles, and
by seeking ways to severely limit its involvement, the
world body lost the opportunity to play a significant part
in preventing this tragedy. Worse still, the difficulty in
assembling and suitably equipping a United Nations
peace-keeping force has not helped to instil in those who
25

have fled the confidence needed to return, and in those who
have remained the confidence needed to stay.
All this leaves the new Government of Rwanda in the
throes of a critical dilemma, requiring immeasurable soul
searching. For a country from which nearly one-third of
the population has fled - in the case of Rwanda some 2
million people - the numbers are so large and
disproportionate as to deny the Government a large measure
of the legitimacy it badly needs. Something very serious
must be done to bring the two peoples together in
meaningful national reconciliation, with a Government that
reflects this. Certainly the spirit and intent of the Arusha
Accord remains even more valid today in the light of what
has taken place.
Note must also be taken of the valiant efforts of the
United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR),
facing terrible odds in a situation of such frightening chaos.
Despite its small numbers, its attempts to alleviate the
suffering and protect the vulnerable undoubtedly saved
many lives and provided a measure of sanity in a sea of
madness. The world body should recognize with pride and
great appreciation what has been done by the personnel of
UNAMIR and its illustrious leader, General Romeo Dallaire
of Canada.
One reason for pessimism in Central Africa is the fact
that many of the factors that led to breakdown in Rwanda
are also present in Burundi. There the ominous rise in
killings, coupled with the accelerating pace of rearmament,
should cause extreme concern to the world community.
With the army at the epicentre of power, and with weapons
calling the shots, so to speak, government and politics could
remain tense and unstable. However, we are strongly
encouraged by the recent indications of an emerging
political consensus, as evidenced by the installation of a
new president. This is a positive trend which we hope will
manifest itself in all aspects of political, economic and
social activity.
The plights of Angola and Liberia are likewise grave;
both are locked in a destructive state of shooting
negotiations. In both, the humanitarian situation is again
regressing and a cease-fire is nowhere in sight; the gun is
again the preferred method of voting. Fortunately, progress
toward peace and an elected national Government is still on
its course in Mozambique, where the leadership seems to be
serious about ending the prolonged and destructive state of
conflict and engaging for the first time in building a
democratic State through national elections, scheduled for
October this year.
The United Nations Observer Mission in
Mozambique (UNOMOZ) is determined to fulfil all
targets and tasks on schedule and believes in the
prospects of success for the people of Mozambique. Its
strong
In Haiti, the long-anticipated international
intervention, sanctioned in Security Council resolution
940 (1994), has taken place. A multinational force has
peacefully secured the country, thanks in large measure to
the good deal of prudence shown, and the intense
diplomatic efforts undertaken, by the United States. We
are pleased that the junta has deemed it unwise to oppose
the world, and instead has agreed to relinquish power in
order to facilitate the return of the democratically elected
President, Mr. Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
In other areas, Djibouti remains saddened by the
status quo in the bilateral discussions between the two
Gulf neighbours, Iran and the United Arab Emirates,
concerning the three islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb
and Abu Musa. We believe there is an urgent need for a
renewed and serious effort to resolve this dispute through
all possible peaceful avenues, including its referring it to
the International Court of Justice.
Bosnia remains a high-profile international
flashpoint. Despite the warning of dire consequences, the
Bosnian Serbs have rejected the final compromise
proposal of the five-nation Contact Group, which awards
them 49 per cent of the country, over two-thirds of which
they have taken by force. In the weeks since the
rejection, nothing has been done to punish the Bosnian
Serbs, as it had been intimated would be done. In fact,
the Serbs continue to apply consistent pressure on the
Bosnian Government and the United Nations, targeting
Sarajevo and its airport, blocking United Nations food
convoys and strangling safe areas such as Srebrenica and
Gorazde. Even "ethnic cleansing" has resumed. One
shudders to think what would have happened immediately
if it had been the Muslim party that had rejected the
proposal.
This inaction reflects the blatant unwillingness of the
international community to take any meaningful action
against the culprits, let alone punish them. This only
encourages further intransigence. The Serb reaction to
difficult situations consists in resorting to wild, radical
behaviour, eliciting retreat and concessions by the
peacemakers. One can never say what they will do
tomorrow, which means their word today has no intrinsic
value. To have rewarded Belgrade with a loosening of
26

the sanctions in the absence of a viable and comprehensive
peace agreement or concrete proof of compliance is to
mistake the form of this family dispute for its substance
perhaps because there is none. And what is the benefit for
the Bosnian Government, which agreed to the peace plan?
Will steps be taken to remedy the onerous military and
humanitarian imbalance? Will Serbia-Montenegro
recognize Bosnia within its current borders or agree to
cooperate with the International Tribunal? The proper
course of action, in the absence of any semblance of sanity
and settlement, is to lift the arms embargo against the
Bosnian Government. What else?
I would now like to address the question of Somalia.
The return to a functioning civil society in Somalia is, if
anything, even more remote, as meaningful inter-faction
talks have ceased, security is evaporating, the dream of
national reconciliation fading and the United Nations
Operations in Somalia (UNOSOM) focused on the process
of withdrawing. The only certainty in Somalia is political
uncertainty. As a neighbour that has observed and knows
all too well Somalia’s convulsive history, Djibouti can only
be distressed at the continuing problems and utter
hopelessness.
What is to be done? For too long the United Nations
has sought voluntary disarmament, conferences of national
reconciliation, interim government and hopefully, in the
end, a government elected by the people. Creating pressure
for this process is the looming departure of UNOSOM
scheduled for 31 March 1995, when operations may be
closed down. Although we anticipate that the people will
ultimately have the final say through elections, at present it
is the warlords and their factions that have been given a
comprehensive veto. On the assumption that they are the
powers that be in Somalia, considerable time has been spent
attempting to gain their agreement in the hope of eventually
reaching the people through them. But clearly the faction
leaders desire the political process to stop with them
without flowing through to the people. So at their door
everything stops, and the people are never given a say or an
input.
The obvious plan of the faction leaders is undoubtedly
to induce the United Nations to believe conditions are
propitious for withdrawal and then to settle scores among
themselves until someone is victorious. But in the process,
can we discount the possibility of a return to conditions of
starvation and famine, the kind of Somalia that existed prior
to the arrival of the United Nations? What will be the
immediate and long-term consequences or implications of
leaving Somalia in anarchy to the forlorn women, children
and innocent population of Somalia and to its neighbours,
which are already weighed down under an incessant flow
of refugees? Will there be a Somali State in the end?
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It is hard, however, to preclude
a positive eventuality, however far-fetched that may seem
at present.
Clearly, what is absent from the whole process is the
voice of the people in the selection of true, legitimate
leadership and government to counter the present
abdication of power to bands of gun-holders. We must
find ways of directly giving voice to the people, leading
straight to legitimate government. Solidifying these steps
would then be the job of ample United Nations forces on
hand, drawing upon this Organization’s experience in
Cambodia, Mozambique and elsewhere. Certainly, the
thought of leaving Somalia with nothing in place and so
many lives at risk is both abhorrent and unacceptable, a
case where it will be interpreted that a "failed State" has
been abandoned by the United Nations. Walking out of
a society in a mess before reconstituting it as a
functioning entity will undeniably mark a precedent in the
history of the United Nations and will certainly represent
a far cry from the hopes, promises and commitments
enshrined in the Charter.
Although I have briefly explored situations in a
number of world trouble spots, the sad fact is that others
appear to be gathering wind in their sails, ready to burst
forth. Consequently, demands for expanded United
Nations involvement can be expected to rise, and the
question that must again be asked, based upon recent
experiences is: Could the Organization cope? More and
more we see peace-keeping patterns of an ad hoc nature,
struggling under the lack of equipment, logistics,
intelligence and manpower, poor coordination and
communications. But the fault can hardly be laid at the
feet of the United Nations if its urgent requests for
material and human resources are not met or are met
slowly or inadequately. With no force or equipment of
its own, and therefore required to begin each operation
from scratch, the resulting delays have severely hampered
timely United Nations reaction - leading, for example, to
genocide in Rwanda. And all this says nothing of the
difficulties stemming from ever-dwindling resources.
Such a state of affairs must be a cause for concern,
as the United Nations will increasingly be forced to limit
its responses to diplomatic initiatives, such as we have
seen in Haiti. In place of classic peace-keeping, we will
witness a growing reliance upon ad hoc multinational
intervention, the so-called posse response, but that too has
27

its limitations - for we are concerned with whether there is
to be meaningful collective security. If United Nations
peace-keeping withers, and in its place we are forced to
rely on ad hoc interventions, then we need to ask under
what basis that involvement will be forthcoming. In view
of these developing trends, the United Nations may be
forced to rely more upon simply letting conflicts run their
natural course, as in Somalia.
What this situation amply demonstrates is that the
United Nations needs a well-trained, mobile, standing force
with rapid deployment capability. Delayed deployment of
undermanned and under-equipped units, as was the situation
in Rwanda, fails to inspire confidence. The availability of
a rapid reaction force may at least address a good number
of probable conflict situations, often serving as a deterrent
simply by virtue of being in a position to act quickly.
It is fashionable these days to say that we live in an
international world, a "global village" in which nations can
no longer avoid the effects of developments in their
neighbours or the world. For Djibouti, this fact has a
particularly telling impact, for we have been forced to
grapple with the effects of years of past instability, warfare
and massive national disintegration in the Horn of Africa,
as in Somalia at present. From the financially debilitating
incursion of heavily armed militia to the equally draining
cost of demobilization that we face right now; to the flood
of refugees, the care and cost of which has overwhelmed
our infrastructure and health, educational and housing
services; to the crippling loss of vital markets, as in
Somalia, for our services; coupled with the devastation
brought by the seemingly unending drought and pestilence,
Djibouti has inevitably been slowly moving towards
negative growth and development in the last few years.
Yet, whatever the extent of our difficulties arising
from these circumstances, Djibouti has steadfastly sought to
remain a good-neighbourly State, contributing, to the extent
permitted by our meagre resources, to regional stability and
peace efforts.
Moreover, recognizing the need to further involve the
people of Djibouti in the complex process of development
and governance, we have an overhauled our political
structure and institutions.
Still there remains a disturbing predicament facing
Djibouti and other countries like it in the world, namely
that countries which are relatively stable, moderate and
democratic and which are contributing, and participating in
international efforts, to bring relief, reduce tensions, halt
aggression and conflict tend to be overlooked by the
international community. Despite the drain on our
meagre resources because of refugees and market losses,
and despite our continuing positive contributions to
regional and international peace efforts, it seems that the
general calm and freedom prevailing in my country are
lulling the world into believing that there are no really
pressing concerns or needs or for assistance. Too often,
little attention too often is paid to a nation, it seems, until
it is too desperate and near collapse, or until it is
perceived by the international community as a source of
new danger to peace and security, thereby qualifying it
for aid and assistance. This makes little sense, and is
indeed a mockery of the preventive measures that are
often-mentioned but seldom instituted. We deserve better,
but we remain quite confident that both our efforts and
our urgent needs for critical resources will be recognized
by our friends and development partners.
Djibouti, and all the countries of the Horn, have
been subjected to the ravages of destructive natural
causes, well beyond our individual power to cope with
them. Such is the inexorable drift of the Sahara
southward, or the severe drought conditions leading to
famine which now plagues the Horn. Overall, an
estimated 20 million people are at risk in 10 countries,
facing farms that are parched, rivers that are dried up, and
pestilence. Anticipating possible mass starvation resulting
from the lack of rain and water, food stocks were made
ready, only to be virtually depleted by a sudden
emergency elsewhere, as in Rwanda. A pervasive air of
hopelessness and apprehension now grips the nations of
the Horn, the urgency of which merits the immediate
concern and attention of the international community.
Adding to the difficulties arising from natural causes,
nations just as often face social forces over which they
have little control. Domestic macro-economic policies in
many industrialized countries, seeking to combat inflation
or balance international payments, often have drastic
effects on the demand for third-world products and on
commodity prices. The result, as one analyst explains, is
frequently declining terms of trade, sharply increased
interest rates, reduced exports, massive increases in
current account deficits, interest and debt-service
payments, all at a time of reduced aid and other capital
flows. External payment restraints, in particular, have
affected levels of domestic production in both industrial
and agricultural sectors, at times even production for
export, leading to inflation, acute financial crises and
mounting debt.
28

Many third world countries simply lack the economic
capacity and flexibility to react in the short term. In the
long run, everyone benefits from greater coherence and
efficiency in the international economic system. Clearly the
world’s economic and financial system requires much more
order, predictability, coordination and fairness.
Along these lines, I feel it is imperative to refer again
to the issue of the restructuring and revitalization of the
United Nations in the economic, social and related fields -
in particular the relevant General Assembly resolutions
bearing particularly on the vital field of operational
activities for development, and the General Assembly’s
important coordinating role. As the most truly
representative body of the world’s people and States, the
General Assembly needs to return to its original role as
contemplated by the founding Member States and set forth
in the Charter. It must provide a more decisive lead in
strategy and policy, in reviewing, in critiquing and
approving the operation of the total system.
Likewise, as opposed to the extreme decentralization
current in United Nations economic activities and
institutions - each one a separate entity unto itself, often at
cross purposes - we must also return to the original role
foreseen in the Charter for the Economic and Social
Council as an economic security council. The Economic
and Social Council must remain open to receive and
address the concerns of Africa, which should not be
hampered in its effective and beneficial participation in the
Council and its subsidiary bodies. In this regard, we
welcomed the Secretary General’s report "An Agenda for
Development" which provided the opportunity for a
comprehensive review of world economic and social
problems, particularly in Africa. Africa’s development
concerns have been well documented in General Assembly
resolution 48/214 on the United Nations New Agenda for
the Development of Africa in the 1990s, which we hope
can serve as a basis on which the international community
can act in solidarity in mobilizing new and additional
resources to solve the pressing problems of the poor. For
if we are to address constructively the questions of
economic growth and development, of the formulation of
truly beneficial international macro-economic systems, we
need to begin to take those confidence- building measures
that will bring the North and the South closer and
strengthen the concept of partnership.
In the area of collective security, there remains
the imperative need to expand the Security Council and to
make it more transparent and democratic through an
increase in its membership and by making it more
accountable to the General Assembly. There should be
periodic reviews of the Council’s structure and functions
in line with international developments. A more equitable
geographical representation is critical, along with an
increase in permanent representation for developing
countries.


I should like to congratulate
Mr. Essy on his election as President of this, the forty-
ninth, session of the General Assembly. The Estonian
people wish him all the best in this post.
Today is a day of national mourning in my country.
Late last night, amid stormy autumn winds, the passenger
and car ferry Estonia, sailing from Tallinn to Stockholm,
sank at high sea. Nearly 100 people have been saved, and
rescue efforts are continuing. But most of the over 850
people who were aboard the Estonia are presumed to be
dead. I should like to thank the President and all those who
have expressed their sorrow and sent condolences.
In this painful loss, we can draw some solace from
the global teamwork we have seen in the rescue efforts.
Last night demonstrated beyond a doubt that the Baltic
Sea is a sea of cooperation. Swedish, Finnish, Danish
and Estonian rescue units worked together, and we had
offers of help from Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and countless others. On behalf of
my Government, I thank all of those who helped us with
the rescue effort. The spirit of international cooperation
sets a fine example for all of us here today.
Today my country comes before this forum for the
first time in half a century unfettered by the problem of
the presence of foreign troops on our soil. The role the
United Nations played in helping to remove the last
vestiges of the Second World War was not small. It is
therefore a special privilege for me to speak here today.
It is also not insignificant that this new era in the
history of Estonia, Latvia and Germany coincides with the
upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the
United Nations. These two events would seem to call for
solemn reflection on the past or at least a joyous
celebration of the moment. But most of all, this new era
requires new approaches. Post-war security - be the war
hot or cold - still hangs in a delicate balance. Because it
is up to all of us, collectively, to decide which way the
scales tip, I wish to focus on the future, on how we in
Estonia are approaching this new era, and on some of the
ideas enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations that
we believe deserve special attention in the next few years.
On 31 August, we marked the withdrawal of troops.
The celebrations and commemorations of this event
symbolized the end of one era and the beginning of
another. The withdrawal of the troops has had a
tremendous effect in bringing us closer to normalization
of relations with the Russian Federation, and we sincerely
hope that the problem of officers who were demobilized
on our territory against the spirit and the letter of the
troop-withdrawal treaty will be solved. The troop
withdrawal was also a major step towards achieving
security in the Baltic region. But the problem of Baltic
security has not yet been solved - far from it.
One dimension of moving towards bona fide security
undoubtedly lies in trying to improve relations with the
Russian Federation. The potential for good will is in the
air, and it is our duty, on both sides of the 1920 Tartu
Peace Treaty, to seize the moment and make that peace
again. We might call this policy towards Russia one of
positive engagement. This would involve, among other
24

qualities, mutual respect for sovereignty, mutual respect for
national security interests, mutual refraining from verbal
and other confrontation, and mutual respect for international
norms of behaviour, particularly in the area of human
rights.
We are willing to expend considerable energy to repair
a relationship that has been historically so complex. To do
so is not only in our own interest and in that of Russia, but
in the interest of regional, European and therefore global
security as well. I would emphasize, however, that in order
for this policy to be successful, it must be mutual. If, on
the other hand, our efforts are not reciprocated, then we
must be prepared to expend our energy in different ways.
Lately, we have noted with great concern talk of
creating new spheres of influence. We hear continuing use
of the phrase "the near abroad". We observe similar
attitudes in discussions about the enlargement of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union. We
are already well past the initial stages of building a
European security structure. A viable framework, based on
shared values, that includes Central and East European
States is nearly in place. It is not only late but unacceptable
to ponder the plans of architects who speak of spheres of
influence and to consult contractors who wish to build on
sand or, worse, on a slippery slope.
There are some specific ways in which the United
Nations can take advantage of the historic opportunity it
faces to encourage principled behaviour. One of them is to
render peace-keeping more effective by strengthening
peace-keeping mechanisms, including the dissemination of
better and more timely information to all Member States in
order to garner the support necessary for any collective
action. Rather than abdicating responsibility, whether due
to benign neglect, expediency or funding problems, and
allowing large States to act unilaterally, it means holding all
States in all regions to the same standards. It goes without
saying that in lending its name to any peacekeeping
operations, the United Nations must stand by the
fundamental principles of neutrality and multilateralism.
The United Nations should never become a mask behind
which one country tries to assert dominance over another
by means of peace-keeping.
Let me add that Estonia is actively developing its own
peace-keeping force, to be put, perhaps next year, at the
disposal of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Another area in which more effective mechanisms and
more stringent standards are needed is that of human rights,
as reflected in the Vienna Declaration and plan of action
of last year. I would stress the importance of the newly
established Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights taking on this task. We wish High Commissioner
Ayala Lasso success in this most important and
challenging endeavour.
We believe the High Commissioner can be
instrumental not only in improving the effectiveness of
the United Nations human rights mechanisms, but also in
holding this body to strict standards. We believe that all
States should be measured according to the same human
rights standards. I could not agree more with the
observation made by Russian Federation President Boris
Yeltsin two days ago in this forum that
"neither a selective approach nor double standards
are permissible." (Official Records of the General
Assembly, Forty-ninth Session, Plenary Meetings,
5th meeting, p. 2)
Indeed, exceptions cannot be made on the basis of the
size of a nation, its cultural heritage or the political
delicacy of the situation. The standards that are applied
to one country must be valid for all others - in other
words, there should be no elastic rulers.
In this regard, allow me to remind the Assembly of
an open letter - an appeal, really, to morality in foreign
policy - which was signed by a host of political
luminaries and published in September of last year in The
Wall Street Journal. I quote from the letter, entitled
"What the West Must Do In Bosnia":
"Even if, like Kuwait in August 1990, all
Bosnia (and not just Sarajevo) were seized, it would
be essential for the democracies to make clear, as
they did in the case of Kuwait, that violent border
changes and ethnic cleansing will not stand. If the
West does not make that clear, it will have nothing
persuasive to say ...".
Sadly, the message in that letter remains applicable
today. If the world’s democracies, led by the United
Nations, do not speak out for morality in the area of
human rights, we will lose our ability to influence the
course of events. Democracies must be willing to stand
by the principles upon which our States and societies are
based. It is our sincere hope that non-selective
application of human rights standards will become the
rule, not the exception.
25

A third way the United Nations can take advantage of
this moment is to consider the global changes that have
taken place since 1945. Then, in the immediate post-war
period, the composition of the Security Council was
established by drawing a sharp distinction between the
victors and the vanquished. Times have changed. We
must now take into account the positive role that some
States in particular play in the international arena. And I
have in mind here Germany and Japan, States that have
more than demonstrated their commitment to democracy
during the last 50 years. Estonia strongly supports granting
Germany and Japan permanent-member status in the
Security Council as a recognition of their accomplishments
and an acknowledgement of their stabilizing role in world
affairs.
I would turn now briefly to Estonia’s vision of its
future role in the United Nations. Now that the issues
which had hitherto demanded our intense attention have
been more or less solved, we are freer to devote more
energy to wider issues that affect all of us. I am speaking
here of global phenomena such as terrorism, organized
crime, drug trafficking and smuggling of radioactive
materials as well as health and social issues and
environmental problems. These are issues that know no
borders, and dealing with them requires a collective effort
on our part.
On this, the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of the
United Nations, we face an enormous challenge. The war
- I mean the Second World War - is finally over. But the
real battle - to safeguard human and civil rights for all
persons, to strengthen security for all States, to preserve a
continent undivided - this battle has only just begun. With
intelligence, perseverance, goodwill, and a little luck, the
nations gathered here can unite in the battle to make the
next 50 years more constructive than the last.