It is my pleasure, Mr. President, to congratulate you on
your election as President of the General Assembly at its
fifty-fourth session. We are confident that your efforts and
expertise will ensure the success of this session.
I should also like to thank your predecessor,
Mr. Didier Opertti, for having successfully conducted the
work of the fifty-third session. Furthermore, I would be
remiss if I failed to express our thanks and appreciation to
the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his dedication
to the pursuit of world peace and stability and for his
continuous efforts to enhance the credibility of the
Organization through the settlement of disputes, old and
new.
This session is unique not only because it is the last
General Assembly session of the century that witnessed the
birth of the United Nations, but also because it coincides
with the emergence of serious trends that call for by-
passing some of the basic principles on which the United
Nations was built. They advocate the establishment of a
new world order, one to whose requirements the United
Nations must conform rather than being part of the wider
and more comprehensive United Nations framework.
A case in point is the call to acknowledge the
principle of relative sovereignty or the obligation to
interfere where necessary in the internal affairs of States, or
to marginalize the role of the Security Council, which is the
main tool for the maintenance of international peace and
security.
Some States believe that the establishment of a new
world order is a result of decisive, historic developments in
vision and concept. Others, however, feel that it is no more
than a mere desire on the part of some to impose ideas
commensurate with the drastic change that has taken place
in the balance of power on the international scene. In our
opinion, this issue requires further deliberations and
discussions.
Through dialogue we, the peoples and countries of the
world, can arrive at a unanimous understanding of the
questions at hand, and in this way secure the necessary
assurance in our pursuit of the common good and security
of humanity. History has shown that no regime or system
can endure and prevail unless it is built on justice and
equality. It cannot be selective, nor can it pursue a policy
of double standards. It cannot assert its authority over
some and remain indifferent to injustices done to others.
It cannot give generously to some and persistently deprive
others. Any system that seeks to maintain international
peace and security must depend on preventive diplomacy
to preempt problems long before their onset and
exacerbation.
Furthermore, it should create an effective mechanism
for peacemaking, one that contributes seriously to
building and safeguarding peace. It is essential that we
tackle the root causes of problems, not merely their
violent manifestations.
We must also persevere in our pursuit of world
economic and social justice. We should not be content
with defending stability from a restrictively political
perspective.
In any event, no world order, whether old or new,
can condone, for example, the occupation of the lands of
others by force. It cannot allow acts of aggression to be
committed against people and property, nor should it
subject civilians to various forms of arbitrary practices.
In March 1978, Israel undertook a unilateral act of
aggression against Lebanon. It occupied one tenth of
Lebanese territory. In the face of this aggression, the
Security Council adopted resolution 425 (1978) and called
upon Israel to withdraw its forces from all Lebanese
territories immediately and unconditionally.
Even though more than 21 years have passed since
the adoption of that resolution by the Security Council, it
has not been enforced. Israel continues to occupy
cherished parts of southern Lebanon and the Western
Bekaa valley. Throughout those years, Israel has
continued its almost daily acts of aggression against
Lebanon and its people.
In 1982, Israel's hostility peaked when its forces
invaded Lebanese territory, reaching the capital, Beirut,
after a long siege. After a partial withdrawal from
Lebanon, Israel resorted to the current scorched-earth
policy. Throughout the month of July 1993, Israel
bombed dozens of Lebanese villages and towns from
land, air and sea positions. It inflicted heavy property
damage, killed and wounded more than 250 civilians and
9

forced more than 300,000 Lebanese out of their homes and
villages.
In April 1996, continuing its policy of comprehensive
destruction and bombardment, Israel intentionally massacred
102 civilians in the village of Qana, using incendiary
bombs. Most of our fallen martyrs were women, children
and elderly men who sadly thought they could find a safe
haven in the premises of the United Nations forces in
southern Lebanon, but alas, Israel did not hesitate to violate
the sanctity of those premises.
Soon after, an understanding was reached for a
ceasefire and for protecting civilians. This became known
later as the April Understanding of 1996. A group was
established to monitor the implementation of that
agreement, with the membership of Lebanon, Syria and
Israel and under the co-chairmanship of France and the
United States of America.
Allow me, on this occasion, to express our
appreciation to the group for the useful and restraining role
it has played pending the realization of the full and
unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanese
territories.
Unfortunately, this has not prevented Israel from
repeatedly and seriously violating the terms of the April
Understanding. Israel has lately launched yet another attack
against Lebanese civilians and infrastructure. On 24 and 25
June 1999, Israeli warplanes destroyed two power plants
and three bridges, causing a total blackout in Lebanon.
Communications were jeopardized, extensive property
damage was incurred and many people were killed. This
Israeli act of aggression has had direct and indirect negative
effects on the social and economic life of Lebanon until
this very moment.
Israel persists in its oppressive arbitrary practices
against civilians in the territories that are still under its
occupation. Civilians are kidnapped, detained, tortured or
killed, displaced or expelled.
We in Lebanon are tirelessly working with the United
Nations and other humanitarian forums to put an end to
these acts and to prevent their recurrence, the most recent
of which was the imposition of siege on the village of Aita
al-Sha b and other villages in the south. Agricultural crops
were destroyed and many of the residents were kidnapped,
expelled or detained.
On 14 July 1999, Lebanon celebrated Lebanese
prisoners' day. From this rostrum, we again call for the
redoubling of efforts and for bringing more pressure to
bear on Israel to release all the Lebanese detainees
languishing in Israeli prisons as hostages.
Israel's Supreme Court has acknowledged and
condoned holding these prisoners. Some of these people
are incarcerated in al-Khiyam detention camp inside
Lebanese occupied territories. There are many elderly and
sick among them who are often denied visits and the
humanitarian care usually provided by the International
Committee of the Red Cross. This is a breach of the
Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the protection of
civilians in time of war.
On this occasion, Lebanon emphasizes once again its
right to be compensated for the loss of life and for the
property damage that has been inflicted upon it for many
years as a result of Israel's acts of aggression and
arbitrary practices against its civilians.
Lebanon recalls the need for the unconditional
implementation of resolution 425 (1978). Pending the
enforcement of that resolution, it is only natural that the
Lebanese people stand united in resisting Israeli
occupation. It is also just and natural that they uphold the
legitimacy of the Lebanese resistance, which is after all
an embodiment of the faith in one's homeland and a
highly evolved form of struggle for freedom. Moreover,
the Lebanese resistance constitutes a consecration of the
legitimate right of self-defense included in the terms of
reference of the April Understanding of 1996.
Israel repeatedly circumvents the mandate of the
United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). For
our part, we highly value the positive and constructive
role that UNIFIL plays. On this occasion, we would like
to express once again our appreciation and gratitude to
the Force for the noble sacrifices it has made in fulfilling
its mandate under the most arduous circumstances.
Lebanon is certainly committed to the Middle East
peace process. Lebanon stands ready, given the
inseparability of the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, to
resume the negotiations from the point where they left off
in 1996 and in accordance with the terms of reference of
the 1991 Madrid Conference. Our ultimate objective is to
reach a just, comprehensive and permanent peace in the
Middle East on the basis of the resolutions of
international legitimacy. Lebanon reiterates here its
commitment to resolution 425 (1978), which does not call
10

on the parties concerned to negotiate but does
unequivocally call upon Israel to withdraw immediately and
unconditionally from all Lebanese territories.
At a time when serious prospects have appeared on the
horizon for the resumption of the peace negotiations, and
despite what might be said about the art of negotiation, the
recent declarations by senior Israeli officials do not auger
well for the peace process. Nor do they expressly indicate
the presence of presumably good intentions. They do not
leave room for us to conclude that there is a genuine desire
on the part of the Israeli side to establish peace based on
justice. All of this prompts us to view with caution the
conditions set out for the resumption of the peace process
at the present stage, to say the least.
Israel's intransigence becomes all the more apparent in
the light of the statements made by its Prime Minister
Barak. In those statements, Mr. Barak stressed several no's,
namely, no to a return to the 1967 borders, no to the
partition of Jerusalem, no to dismantling the settlements,
and no to the return of Palestinian refugees. Mr. Barak
repeated his position when he declared at his recent meeting
with President Clinton that the Palestinian refugees shall not
return to their homeland and that they should stay in the
countries where they presently reside. The natural
prerequisites of peace cannot be reconciled with
Mr. Barak's no's. Those prerequisites are based on justice
and have been endorsed by international legitimacy. They
require the following elements.
Israel should withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon,
in accordance with the provisions of Security Council
resolution 425 (1978).
All of the Golan Heights should be returned to Syria,
to the borders of 4 June 1967, as has already been
discussed and agreed upon.
The Palestinian people should be able to regain their
inalienable rights. Those rights include their right to self-
determination, to the establishment of their State on their
national soil, with Jerusalem as its capital, and their right to
return to the lands in Palestine from which they were
uprooted.
On this occasion Lebanon would like to draw the
attention of the international community to the fact that it
is impossible for a peaceful settlement to be achieved and
for the long-awaited peace to endure and prevail unless the
Palestinian refugees, particularly the hundreds of thousands
whom Lebanon has hosted on its soil, are allowed to return
to their homeland. From this international rostrum,
Lebanon resonates its people's unanimous and
unequivocal rejection of settling Palestinian refugees on
its territories. This unanimity was consecrated in the
Lebanese Constitution, which is the cornerstone of the
national covenant. We see it as necessary to draw
attention to the danger of approaching this question from
a merely economic and social perspective while ignoring
its political dimension. That political dimension is, in
essence, the core of the injustice that befell the
Palestinians who were displaced from their homeland.
This unanimous position is shared by both the Lebanese
and the Palestinians in Lebanon.
Lebanon therefore renews its call for the
international community to shoulder its responsibility in
full. It must come up with a just and equitable settlement
that addresses the issue of the final status of the
Palestinian refugees, in accordance with the
internationally agreed principles that govern similar
situations. Those principles, it should be recalled, were
recently applied in Kosovo. Settling Palestinian refugees
in Lebanon, which is equally rejected by the Palestinians
and the Lebanese, would create, if carried out, a potential
hotbed of tension that would jeopardize the security of the
Middle East region and its stability as well.
We view positively the opportunity for progress in
the peace process. The recent visit by United States
Secretary of State Madame Madeleine Albright to some
countries in the region was an acknowledgment of the
responsibilities of her country and the influence that that
visit can bring to bear on the parties to the conflict. For
our part, we are keen on the role that the United States
and the Russian Federation can play in the pursuit of a
just and comprehensive peace. We believe that they can
both provide the necessary guarantees for the successful
implementation of the prospective agreement.
We equally count on an active European role in both
the political process and the development of the region as
well. This applies to the negotiations for the settlement of
the conflict and to the subsequent stage. We particularly
applaud the supportive role of France, on which we can
always rely.
We would like on this occasion to thank the
Presidency of the European Union, currently held by
Finland. Our thanks go in particular to Ms. Tarja
Halonen, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, who
recently visited Lebanon as part of her visit to the region.
Ms. Halonen expressed the European Union's readiness to

contribute to the search for a just, peaceful and
comprehensive solution to the Middle East question.
Lebanon was among the first countries to condemn the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It supported all
the Security Council resolutions adopted in this regard. We
express our solidarity with sisterly Kuwait on the question
of the release of Kuwaiti detainees and prisoners of war.
We also support Kuwait's claim of sovereignty over all of
its territories and resources. Releasing the Kuwaiti prisoners
can contribute to the improvement of inter-Arab relations.
At the same time, Lebanon hopes that the embargo imposed
on the brotherly people of Iraq be lifted. They, too, are
entitled to live in dignity and to enjoy prosperity and
security.
Lebanon attaches special importance to the question of
consolidating the security and stability of the Arab Gulf
region. We applaud the efforts made by Gulf Cooperation
Council to eliminate the causes of tension and to settle
existing disputes by peaceful means in the context of good
faith and good neighbourly relations. Those efforts were
undertaken to settle, among other things, the dispute
between the United Arab Emirates and the Islamic Republic
of Iran over three islands.
The United Nations is the sum total of the collective
will of its Member States. It has been unable to discharge
all of its obligations in the context of the settlement of
protracted and new disputes. It has also been unable to
restore peace to many of the tension-ridden regions of the
world. It is appropriate to proceed with the reform
programme envisaged for the international Organization, as
outlined by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1997. This
will enable the United Nations to respond to the accelerated
pace of international relations in the political, economic and
social fields.
But despite all the risks and pitfalls, our international
Organization is still a unique international authority. It is
the proper forum in which to engage in a balanced and
objective discussion that will lead to at least some
necessary solutions. It is heartening indeed to recall that the
Organization has had some outstanding and promising
achievements in several fields of human endeavour. These
include achievements in the fields of human rights, the
rights of the child and women's rights, as well as
environment and development. They also include the
progressive development of international law and the
enriching of the body of international law by the
establishment of new institutions such as the International
Criminal Court.
It is pertinent to mention in this respect that Lebanon
has a time-honoured culture that is deeply rooted in
history. Our country has been an integral part of the
international scene, acting and reacting to it positively,
since it joined the Organization as a founding Member.
Because of its openness and intellectual wealth, it has
always taken the lead in responding to the requirements
of progress at various levels.
Lebanon is seeking to join the World Trade
Organization (WTO). It has been working steadily to
develop its economy and rationalize its financial policies.
By so doing, it will be able to bring these policies in line
with the standards and regulations drawn up by WTO.
This will ultimately pave the way for a world economic
partnership in trade and development on the basis of
mutual benefit and equality among States.
Lebanon attaches great importance to environmental
issues and has created a ministry for this specific purpose.
Lebanon joins in the international efforts currently under
way to resolve these problems. It calls upon powerful
States to honour the commitments they entered into under
the international conventions concluded for this purpose.
Lebanon also believes that the phenomenon of
globalization has become a reality that is imbued with
both positive and negative elements, which in turn
influence the cultures and economies of Member States.
In our opinion, the United Nations is the proper forum to
address and check the repercussions of this phenomenon.
It is in fact the mature offspring of the 1940s version of
globalization.
Lebanon has always been firm in its commitment to
the principles of democracy and freedom and faithful to
its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. It
has always honoured the decisions and resolutions of the
international Organization and its various bodies and
conferences. We have built in our capital, Beirut, a
beautiful headquarters building for its subsidiary bodies.
We believe in its mission and are committed to its
purposes.
Lebanon is currently devoting every effort to
complete the process of reconstruction and to consolidate
and rationalize its institutions. We are steadily working on
establishing the rule of law. Our unique experience with
coexistence, built on moderation, tolerance and unity in a
sound national environment, is an example to be
followed. Lebanon is determined to regain the
distinguished position it once held in the region and the
12

world. It will remain true to its Arab identity, with all the
consequences and dimensions that this entails.
Lebanon is a small country on the east coast of the
Mediterranean. For 5,000 years, it has hosted successive
civilizations. Lebanon influenced these civilizations and was
influenced by them. We shall take the lead in giving, once
we have recovered our national soil thanks to the struggle
of our sons and with the effective support of the
international community.


May I begin by adding my
congratulations to those of my colleagues on your election,
Sir, as President of the General Assembly at its
fifty-fourth session. You are no stranger to these halls —
you were here first as an observer and later as a
representative. You bring a wealth of experience to your
position, and we are pleased to see Namibia taking
leadership roles in both the General Assembly and the
Security Council.
Before I move to the main substance of my remarks
today, I want to take this opportunity to mention two
matters.
First, I welcome the three new members of the
United Nations: Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga. Having
worked closely with these three countries in our own
Asia-Pacific community, it is a particular pleasure for me,
as the Foreign Minister of Australia, now to have the
opportunity to take that cooperation into this larger family
of nations.
The second matter is one that seized the attention of
the entire Australian population earlier this year: the fate
of two CARE Australia workers, Steve Pratt and Peter
Wallace, who were imprisoned by the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia. Thanks in no small measure to the support
of the international community, Steve and Peter were
released from prison on 1 September. The efforts of
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the High Commissioner
for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata and the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Mrs. Robinson, and the continued support
of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, were invaluable in gaining the
men’s release.
I would also like to thank President Ahtisaari of
Finland, the Greek Government, Nelson Mandela, Pope
John Paul and the many other individuals who generously
lent their support to this cause. The international
community’s cooperation in this case demonstrates the
strong commitment we share to protecting our
humanitarian workers from persecution, and to ensuring
their capacity to carry out their important work in safety.
Australia will continue to support international efforts to
secure the release of Branko Jelen, a Yugoslav national
and an employee of CARE Australia, who continues to
serve time in a Yugoslav prison.
You, Mr. President, take up your responsibilities at
a most auspicious time, as the nations of the world enter
a new millennium. As they do so, it is appropriate for us
to reflect on the past and the future of the United Nations,
what it has achieved and what tasks remain unfulfilled.
8

Of course, the various aspects of this subject are as
numerous and diverse as the operations of the United
Nations itself, which has evolved from a modest operation
in the early days after the end of the Second World War to
become an Organization that touches on just about every
facet of human existence.
Today I want to concentrate on just two matters. The
first is perhaps the most fundamental task before this
Organization: the maintenance of global peace and security
through humanitarian intervention. This is a subject that has
been at the centre of my own thinking, especially over
recent weeks because of the role Australia has played in the
resolution of the conflict in East Timor. I believe that the
activities of the United Nations in that Territory stand as an
example of the kind of work to which this Organization can
really add value.
The other matter — the reform of the United
Nations — is on the face of it a rather prosaic matter. But,
in truth, reform is the key to every single function of this
Organization, for without it we cannot hope to equip the
United Nations to face the demands of our ever-changing
international environment. The United Nations must change
and adapt, or become increasingly irrelevant.
I turn now to the question of the future of East Timor.
It is now just over a week since the first elements of the
International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) began
arriving in Dili to commence the task set for it under
Security Council resolution 1264 (1999) of 15 September
to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and
support the United Nations Mission in East Timor in
carrying out its tasks and, within force capabilities, to
facilitate humanitarian assistance programmes.
I am pleased to report that INTERFET’s deployment
has been smooth and peaceful, and that elements of the
force are now spreading across the territory of East Timor.
It has begun the vital work of bringing peace back to the
troubled island, and of assisting in creating the right climate
for the provision of the food, shelter and medical assistance
that the East Timorese desperately require. This is the latest
chapter in the long association of the United Nations with
East Timor, an association that has lasted for more than a
quarter of a century. The process that has brought us here
has been long and difficult, but at last we may be
approaching a peaceful resolution of the tragedy that has
beset the East Timorese people for so long.
The fact that we have arrived at this point owes much
to President Habibie of Indonesia. It was President Habibie
who led his country down the path of democracy after the
departure of former President Soeharto. Under President
Habibie’s guidance, Indonesia held its first democratic
elections in more than four decades, and it now awaits the
election of its next President. It was also President
Habibie who decided to allow the people of East Timor
to choose between greater autonomy within Indonesia and
independence. Those were momentous decisions —
decisions that reflect the massive strides that Indonesian
society has made in just a few short months. Australia
stood by the Indonesian people as they began their
transition to democracy, and we will continue to do so in
the years ahead.
Regardless of the problems that have beset the
transition process in East Timor, President Habibie and
his administration deserve full credit for actually initiating
that process. I also want to make special mention of the
role played by the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, in
seeking a peaceful resolution of East Timor's status.
The conclusion on 5 May this year of the tripartite
Agreement among Portugal, Indonesia and the United
Nations owed much to the hard work and perseverance of
the Secretary-General, who helped guide the parties
towards a settlement that provided for a credible and
orderly ballot on East Timor's future. In doing so, he
maintained the honourable tradition of his predecessors as
Secretary-General, who since 1983 had been working with
Portugal and Indonesia towards a comprehensive and just
solution to the region's difficulties.
It would be remiss of me if I did not also mention
the sterling work done both before and after the
conclusion of the Agreement by the Secretary-General's
Personal Representative, Ambassador Jamsheed Marker,
and his deputy, Francesc Vendrell. The work of those two
men was crucial to the successful outcome of the
negotiations and to the holding of the ballot in East
Timor.
Of course, the conclusion of the tripartite Agreement
was just the beginning of the process to allow the East
Timorese to decide their own fate. With the establishment
by the Security Council on 11 June of the United Nations
Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), the practical work of
holding the popular consultation got under way. Under the
leadership of Ian Martin, UNAMET began the difficult
and often dangerous task of organizing a vote in only 12
short weeks. Thanks to the enthusiasm and application of
Ian Martin and his team, that task was accomplished with
results that few could have ever dreamed of. The fact that
9

more than 450,000 people were able to register to vote and
that 98.6 per cent of them actually did so is a remarkable
tribute to the courage and the thirst for democracy of the
East Timorese people.
But it is also a tribute to the effectiveness of
UNAMET and its staff, and a fine example of how
effective the United Nations can be in situations of conflict
and transition. The work done by UNAMET staff in the
days before the ballot and in the tragic days following it
deserves our highest praise. Unarmed, in a tense and
emotionally charged atmosphere, they carried out their
duties magnificently. In particular, the military liaison and
civilian police components of UNAMET, led respectively
by Brigadier General Rezaqul Haider of Bangladesh and
Commissioner Alan Mills of Australia, played crucial roles
as the interface between UNAMET and the Indonesian
police and military authorities.
UNAMET carried out its work at great risk to the staff
involved, and, tragically, several locally engaged employees
paid for their dedication with their lives. That fact is a stark
reminder of the great personal cost that is often associated
with United Nations operations, and a reminder to us all of
the need to make the security and personal safety of United
Nations staff one of our most urgent priorities. The United
Nations must rely on its staff to carry out its various
mandates. A threat to the person of a United Nations staff
member must be treated as a threat against the United
Nations itself.
It is a matter of unfortunate record that the upsurge of
violence in East Timor after the ballot on 30 August swept
up not just United Nations staff members, but hundreds and
maybe thousands of East Timorese. The world has
witnessed the most horrible cruelty visited on the island's
population by people who were unwilling to accept the
outcome of the vote. To the great credit again of President
Habibie, he sought military assistance through the Security
Council. In response, the Security Council delivered a
strong resolution and a positive mandate for peacekeeping
operations, a mandate that will ensure that the will of the
East Timorese people, as expressed in the 30 August vote,
will be carried out.
We in Australia have been very heartened by the
positive international response to the call for military forces
to make up the international force in East Timor and its
successor peacekeeping force. As I have mentioned, the
international forces under the command of Major-General
Peter Cosgrove, have begun to restore order in East Timor.
There are currently some 3,200 personnel on the ground,
drawn from a range of countries, with strong
representation from our own Asia-Pacific region. The
large number of countries participating in the force, and
their wide geographical representation, is evidence of the
widespread international determination to see a peaceful
and orderly transition in East Timor's status.
I am also very pleased to note that UNAMET
personnel have now returned to the island, and will be
able to continue their important work.
In discussing the activities of the United Nations in
East Timor, I must also mention the humanitarian work
done by United Nations agencies. Mrs. Sadako Ogata, the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has
travelled to West Timor to examine the plight of East
Timorese refugees in that territory, and Australia fully
supports her efforts.
Australia is also the staging point for humanitarian
assistance operations being carried out by agencies such
as the World Food Programme and the United Nations
Children's Fund. Additional relief efforts are also planned
by the World Health Organization and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Australia
has already pledged $7 million towards the humanitarian
efforts of United Nations agencies and other
organizations.
The United Nations is also seeking to address the
human rights violations that have been widespread in East
Timor. Security Council resolution 1264 (1999) called on
those responsible for violence in East Timor to be brought
to justice. Australia supports efforts by the Indonesian
Government and the United Nations to bring to account
those responsible for the grievous acts of criminal
violence visited upon the East Timorese people, and will
offer all appropriate assistance in this regard.
More generally, there is now an urgent need to move
as soon as possible to the third phase of the United
Nations plan for East Timor. This will require all parties,
most especially Indonesia and Portugal, to work closely
with the Secretariat. Australia will do what it can to assist
in this process, which will build the foundation for the
transition in the territory's status.
In its activities in East Timor, the United Nations
has demonstrated some of its fundamental strengths as an
organization. It is helping to bring about the resolution of
an international problem that had been festering for a
quarter of a century. It provided the infrastructure that
10

allowed a free and fair expression of the will of the East
Timorese people. And when the security situation could not
be controlled, it facilitated the creation of an international
force to put the transition process back on track and end
gross violations of human rights.
I have been struck by the deep historical resonances of
this process, for when the United Nations was established
at the end of the Second World War, part of its rationale as
an organization was to have been the impartial and
objective resolution of international problems, free of the
old cycles of retribution through resort to aggression. The
ancient resort to armed force and the notion that might was
right were to have been overturned, and in their place the
community of nations was to cooperate to settle
international disputes and solve global problems. The world,
having won a victory over nazism, was determined that
similar evils would never again prevail.
Well, we have seen plenty of occasions in the past 50
years where practice has not measured up to the ideals. But
every now and then, the process works, and I believe that
many elements of the work of the United Nations in East
Timor are evidence of that. Of course, that is not to say
that the process cannot be improved; of course it can. But
if we can identify and build upon the positive elements of
our East Timor experience, I believe that we can not only
improve the situation of the people of that territory, but
may also be able to provide a speedier and more thorough
resolution of other international crises in the future.
We need also to draw lessons from the negative
aspects of events in East Timor. Through our efforts there,
we have shown what the United Nations can do well. Let
us build on that effectiveness, and strive for an organization
that is even more relevant to global peace and security in
the next millennium.
I now turn to another aspect of increased
effectiveness: the question of United Nations reform. In a
recent report on preparations for the Millennium Assembly
and the millennium summit, the Secretary-General
described the United Nations as a unique institution. No
one could disagree that the contribution of the United
Nations to the pursuit of peace and security, to the
economic and social advancement of all peoples and to the
promotion of human rights over the last 50 years or so has
been not just of enormous value, but also truly unique in
world history.
The twenty-first century, however, will bring with it
new challenges and, I hope, new opportunities.
Under the direction of Kofi Annan, this Organization
has begun the important and necessary steps to equip
itself to face these challenges through genuine
administrative and management reform. This has included
promising changes in financial and personnel practices,
significant economies, improving coordination between
United Nations bodies, significant rationalization of
Secretariat structures and more efficient use of
technology. Such reforms make the work of the United
Nations more efficient and provide real savings for the
Organization. Those savings can then be used for other
programmes that benefit all Member States, but
particularly the developing Members of the United
Nations.
The challenge for the United Nations — and, let us
all recognize its Member States — is to ensure that this
momentum is sustained and taken forward. A former
Australian Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, said over
40 years ago that “when we talk of the United Nations,
we should remember what it is in fact, and not be led off
by dreams of what we would like it to be in another kind
of world.”
We need to accept that the United Nations exists in
a real world and be realistic about what it can achieve.
We need to ensure that the Organization's structures and
processes better reflect the realities of the twenty-first
century. We need an expanded, more representative and
more transparent Security Council, and an electoral group
system which reflects the geo-political and economic
realities of today rather than the early nineteen sixties. To
achieve real reforms on these and other subjects, Member
States must work together in a sustained and cooperative
manner. And they must also demonstrate their
commitment to the Organization by paying their
contributions on time and in full.
Reform of the United Nations means building a
stronger and more effective Organization that can deliver
on its commitments to the world's people. It means less
waste and more practical activities. It means developing
an Organization that is equipped to meet whatever
challenges the new century may bring.
Ultimately, it means creating a United Nations that can
maintain its relevance when many national and
international institutions are falling by the wayside, made
obsolete by the rapid pace of change.
I want to conclude my remarks with a call for the
United Nations to concentrate on building on its strengths.
I have mentioned the need to stick with a programme of

thorough and fundamental reform, for that is a basic
prerequisite for the continued effectiveness of the
Organization. But I have also mentioned the United Nations
work in East Timor as an example of how the Organization
can, and does, make a real difference in the resolution of
complex and challenging foreign policy and humanitarian
problems. Not only was the United Nations able to
administer a ballot in circumstances in which many
observers thought the task impossible, but it was also able
to provide for the insertion of a peacekeeping force when
law and order broke down. Those who wished to
exterminate an entire community were foiled.
Those are great strengths. But we need to be able to
consolidate them to make the United Nations a more
effective Organization. We must, for example, be able to
ensure that the United Nations can intervene quickly when
rapidly deteriorating conditions threaten entire nations. That
was the lesson of Rwanda. I was struck by the comments
made by the Secretary-General on this subject when he
addressed the Assembly last week. As the Secretary-
General suggests, changing international circumstances —
including the spread of notions of individual rights and the
idea that the international community has a responsibility to
respond effectively to humanitarian crises — are
challenging traditional notions of national sovereignty. The
United Nations needs to focus on these challenges and
begin the process of defining when and how the
Organization should act in the face of humanitarian crises.
It may be an old cliché to say that the world is
growing ever smaller, but it is true just the same. In days
gone by, the nations of the world may have been forgiven
if they acted too slowly in the face of a humanitarian crisis.
Tales of atrocities, famine and natural disaster took weeks
or months to filter out from the more inaccessible areas of
the globe. Today, those same stories are likely to be on
television screens within hours, or even minutes.
In the face of such indisputable evidence,
Governments will be forced to act. Those that resist will
have to face a domestic and international audience as well
informed as they. That is the kind of environment in which
the United Nations will increasingly have to function,
where the results of inaction will be seen instantly and the
consequences of failure subject to instant and very telling
scrutiny.
Some will be concerned about interference in national
sovereignty, and obviously that is an important and
legitimate concern. Others will say that the greater principle
is that of natural human solidarity. But whatever view is
correct, this environment is a fact we now have to deal
with, whether we like it or whether we don't. When we
all gather here in New York each year, it is easy to get
caught up in the daily business of the United Nations, in
the resolutions, the committee meetings, the briefings and
the caucusing.
How often do we stop, and remind ourselves of the
purposes for which we meet? If we genuinely wish to
uphold the Charter, if we really do want to maintain
international peace and security, help develop our
economic and social strengths and promote respect for
human rights and fundamental reforms, surely we can
start by upholding the most basic right of all, that of life.
In the face of acts of genocide, or of human rights
abuses on a horrendous scale, the nations of the world
must act. I am a firm realist when it comes to foreign
policy, but am also a great believer in the value of
idealism. More than 50 years ago, our predecessors
created the United Nations in the firm hope that there
could be a new international order to replace the old, a
spirit of cooperative international action that could avoid
the competition and aggression that caused two world
wars.
As we approach the end of this century, it is true
that the United Nations has not lived up to all the hopes
of its founders. But the great promise of the Organization
remains. The United Nations response to developments in
East Timor has shown just what positive action on the
part of this Organization can accomplish. We know the
great things this body can achieve. Let us all try to build
on those achievements, so that we may create an
Organization that can truly address the most pressing
problems of the international community. We can build an
active and practical United Nations to meet both the
aspirations of its Member nations and, also, the legitimate
needs of all humanity.


Speaking to the
Assembly one year ago, I demonstrated that the Kingdom
of the Netherlands qualified for membership on the Security
Council. During the elections two weeks later a
substantial majority of this body supported us, and we are
grateful to them. As the Netherlands has served on the
Council now for more than eight months and is currently
its President, I think it is only fair for me to report to all
the Assembly members who showed confidence in us. I
wish to speak on Africa, on the Council, and on shifting
our attention from the State to the people.
Most of today's armed conflicts are in Africa. From
Sierra Leone to Eritrea and from the Sudan to the Congo
and Angola, Africans are fighting Africans. Fighting
accompanies all the plights and pains that are known to
humankind, from poverty and pestilence to famine, fear
and flight.
Africa is not a land of troubles alone but also of
happiness, not a continent only of catastrophe but also
one of hope. The sheer mass of Africa's problems
obscures our view of its promise and its potential. In the
public mind, an unbalanced view of Africa prevails. That
view, I feel, needs to be corrected: we need to rid
ourselves of prejudice and think positively. Instead of
dejection, we need a deepening commitment. Africa,
despite the odds, has come a long way already.
Personally, I was struck, at the opening of the general
debate, by the sight of an African President of South
Africa, speaking in front of an African President of the
General Assembly, seated next to an African Secretary-
General. It is hard to miss the symbolism of that image.
It is one image the founding fathers of this Organization
might not have had, one image that by itself already holds
a promise for the future: the next century may well be the
century of Africa.
The Secretary-General, in his report on Africa, has
made a link between conflict and prosperity. For this
reason, my delegation felt that members of the Council
would be well advised to consider this question in some
depth, and, in our presidential capacity, we have therefore
organized an open-ended public debate, to be held next
week, in which the Secretary-General will brief us on the
state of Africa.
Let me now turn to the question of how to improve
the effectiveness of the United Nations, and the Security
Council in particular, in coping with crisis situations. On
many occasions in its lifetime, I have admired the United
Nations for the way it intervened in emergencies. In
particular, the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United
Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food
21

Programme have enjoyed a long tradition of being in the
forefront. Many non-governmental organizations, such as
Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC), have stood there right beside
them.
Let me pose a number of questions on how the
Security Council performs in emergencies. First, do we not
see a crisis coming before it breaks? Do we not have early
warning systems? Of course we do. The call for
establishing early warning systems has been around for
decades; it has become a buzzword used whenever the
inadequacies of the United Nations response machinery are
being discussed. But in fact, given the level of
communications in modern times, policy planners have
plenty of information to be forward-looking. It is not the
failing of an early warning system that can be put to blame,
nor the lack of data. It is, instead, the failure of decision-
makers to react adequately.
Second question: Why, then, does the United Nations
react inadequately? Do we not have preventive diplomacy?
We do, not only in terms of bilateral efforts of major
nations or of the good offices of the Secretary-General; the
Council itself can be proactive. The recent mission it
dispatched to East Timor is a good example of how the
Council can be more assertive. Missions are an existing
instrument that is, in my opinion, in need of an upgrade. In
addition, the open debate on East Timor in the Council, at
which everybody spoke plain language, fuelled the
mounting international pressure on Indonesia.
Third question: Is the problem, perhaps, the veto? I
know this is a popular view, but it is also a tenuous one.
True, we cannot ignore the veto as a factor in the Council's
performance record. True again, in our discussions on
reform of the Council, the veto is a core element we will
one day have to come to grips with. Yet, the problem is an
intractable one. Tampering with the veto may itself create
the risk of dissolution for the United Nations as a whole.
The very fact that a single Member State can hold the
entire world community in limbo in the face of harrowing
brutalities is affecting the stature and moral force of the
Organization. That, too, may be spawning dissolution. It
may be argued that, without the veto, the United Nations
would not have survived its first 50 years. It may also be
argued that, with the veto, the United Nations will not
survive the next 50 years. In the first 50 years, the
Organization might have fallen apart if the veto had not
been there as a buffer against the push and pull of a bipolar
world. In the second 50 years, in a multipolar world,
repeated inaction by the Security Council would result in
parallel actions outside the United Nations framework,
pushing the Organization, as a custodian of world peace,
more and more into the margins.
No matter when or how the debate on the veto will
end, this Assembly should meanwhile call on those who
possess it to exercise maximum restraint, particularly in
humanitarian emergencies. I concur with my German
colleague that the permanent five are duty-bound to
explain to the world why they are blocking action by the
Council. Moreover, we might consider a situation in
which a negative vote by a permanent member does not
in itself block action.
Fourth question: Does the problem lie in the political
will, perhaps? To simply say that the political will has
been lacking is not only a platitude, but also a very partial
view of reality. For part of that reality is that images of
all the conflicts on the globe travel around the world with
the speed of light. The media broadcasts live images of
human suffering. Understandably, such images rouse
indignation and horror among millions of viewers. They
expect instant action. As people are being better informed
about current events, their level of expectation rises. The
gap between what is expected and what is possible
becomes more visible and more acute. By contrast,
diplomacy comes with tools that may be old and
respectable, but are also solid and slow. And so, while in
a globalizing world human misery is disseminated along
the electronic highway, diplomacy today still proceeds
along a footpath.
This leaves me with the central question: Why is the
Council often running behind reality? How can we make
it catch up with developments?
As I look back at the general debate this week, I
think that we are getting very close to identifying the
main obstacle. I know that many interventions share a
common element — they compare the notion of
sovereignty to that of human rights and territorial integrity
to humanitarian intervention. To be sure, the question per
se is as old as the Charter itself. What is new is the
venue. I cannot recall that Foreign Ministers at the
General Assembly have talked about this question at any
length before. I strongly believe that this issue was bound
to surface at this level at some point or another.
In 1945, the architects of this Organization included
two contradictory premises: respect for territorial integrity
and political independence, on the one hand; and respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, on the other.
22

The world in those days was ruled by Governments alone,
and so the United Nations was made up of States. At the
time, the notion of human rights, although grafted onto the
Charter with much conviction, was essentially at odds with
classical legal thinking. In a way, the tension became even
more pronounced at the adoption of the Universal
Declaration. After all, for half a millennium the notion of
sovereignty had served as the basis of our global political
architecture. As the idea was enshrined in the Charter, the
founding fathers believed it would stand the test of time.
By contrast, the idea of human rights in international
relations was, for the most part, a post-war novelty. Indeed,
the Charter is much more specific on respect for
sovereignty than on respect for human rights.
Since 1945, the world has witnessed a gradual shift in
that balance, making respect for human rights more and
more mandatory and respect for sovereignty less and less
stringent. An elaborate body of international human rights
law has come to counterbalance the dictates of paragraphs
4 and 7 of Article 2. Today, human rights have come to
outrank sovereignty. Increasingly, the prevailing
interpretation of the Charter is that it aims to protect
individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse
them. Today, we regard it as a generally accepted rule of
international law that no sovereign State has the right to
terrorize its own citizens. Indeed, if the Charter were to be
written today, there would be an Article 2.8 saying that
nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize
Member States to terrorize their own people.
Let me go one step further. The blurring of the
boundaries of sovereignty does not stop at human rights. In
the future, the notion of sovereignty is going to be tested
beyond that. Think of decrepit nuclear installations, massive
damage to the environment, lack of water or mass
marketing of narcotic drugs. Can responsible statesmen
afford to wait until the damage is actually done? Or do they
in fact have a duty to prevent it? These are questions
which, at some point, the Security Council will have to be
involved in.
It is not the lack of early warning, not the absence of
preventive diplomacy, not the veto per se. I call on every
politician and every diplomat in this room to accept that the
traditional balance between sovereignty and human rights,
between the State and the people is shifting. I am
convinced this is one of the paramount issues of our time.
Momentum is building, and we should seize it. Let us put
the issue squarely on the agenda: the agenda of the
United Nations, of the Council and of our parliaments at
home. I ask the legal community to keep a keen eye on
the groundswell that is developing and to be innovative in
its thinking. We politicians have a vast responsibility
here. We should steer the discussion towards the people
instead of the State.
The Security Council should be stronger, not weaker.
It should be a credible leader in the maintenance of
peace. In order to be credible, it must be consistent, swift
and proactive. It must show courage, drive and vision. It
must keep changing with the times. It must put people
over politics. That is a tall order. Its decision on East
Timor gave us hope for the Council's potential.


I am pleased
to join those who spoke before me in expressing my
warmest congratulations to the President on his election to
lead this fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. This
choice reflects the great esteem in which the international
community holds his country, Namibia, as well as being a
tribute to his past as a freedom fighter and to his qualities
as a statesman. I assure him of the wholehearted support of
my delegation as he carries out his duties.
I would also like to extend my most sincere
congratulations to President Gurirab’s predecessor,
His Excellency Mr. Didier Opertti, Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Uruguay, for the skill with which he conducted
the work of the fifty-third session of the Assembly.
To Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan,
I would like to express the utmost appreciation of the
Government of Togo for the perspicacity and tenacity he
has shown in seeking solutions to the many problems facing
the Organization.
Finally, I would like to take advantage of this
opportunity to warmly congratulate the Republic of Kiribati,
the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga on their
admission into this great family, the United Nations.
We have met once again this year to take stock of
actions carried out in pursuit of our common objectives
and to coordinate our views on what actions to take in
order to address today’s challenges. Given the current
state of the world, we must acknowledge that, despite the
significant progress that has been made, the world is still
marked, unfortunately, by instability, raging wars and
tensions that are most often due to widespread poverty
and to the uneven distribution of resources, as well as to
the legitimate aspiration of peoples for greater freedom,
justice and well-being.
Indeed, at a time when mankind is getting ready to
embark on the third millennium, our world offers one of
the bleakest pictures in its history from an economic and
social point of view. All kinds of problems linked to
underdevelopment, poverty and inequalities between
developed and disadvantaged countries — problems long
denounced in this and other forums — have worsened in
recent years as a result of the globalization of the
economy. Although developed countries have benefited
from this phenomenon, especially in the areas of trade
and investment, developing countries are suffering the
negative impact of globalization on their economies,
which have already been rendered fragile by their
unbearable debt burden, the plummeting of prices for raw
materials and the steady decline in official development
assistance.
As regards the external-debt problem in particular,
we can never stress enough how the accumulation of this
debt hampers development efforts. The awareness of the
extent of this problem and of its impact on development
is such that the most industrialized countries and the
Bretton Woods institutions and those of the United
Nations system now acknowledge that most of the
developing countries’ debt can never be repaid. They also
acknowledge quite openly that the debt burden is the
major obstacle to the development of poor countries and
that the mechanisms that have been established to resolve
the debt crisis have not been very effective.
Within this context we can only welcome the
commitment of the G-8 summit, held last June in
Cologne, to cancel a portion of the debt of world’s
poorest countries. My delegation encourages the
international community to continue to take bold steps
aimed at resolving the debt problem in an effective and
lasting manner. These steps might include the cancellation
of all of the bilateral debt of the poorest countries, a
significant reduction of the debt burden of middle-income
and low-income countries, and increasing the flexibility
20

of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Debt Initiative so
as to make its benefits more generally available. However,
we should point out that the implementation of such
measures should not be carried out to the detriment of
official development assistance, which, unfortunately,
continues to decline.
As regards trade, it is generally acknowledged that the
expansion of international trade is a true engine for growth
and development. We would like to see the international
community take appropriate measures to integrate
developing countries into the international-trade regime,
through increasing access for their exports to the markets
of developed countries, by supporting the diversification
and strengthening of developing countries’ production
capacities, and by improving terms of trade.
We sincerely hope that the forthcoming negotiations
at the World Trade Organization, the tenth United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development and between the
European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific
countries will take into account the interests of the weakest
partners.
In recent years, many initiatives have been taken on
the bilateral and multilateral levels to try to address the
challenges faced by the African continent. In this respect,
I would cite the United States initiative for a Partnership
for Economic Growth and Opportunity in Africa and the
Tokyo International Conferences on African Development.
While this may be satisfying, there is still reason, in the
name of efficiency, to call for some degree of coordination
between these initiatives and those of the United Nations
system.
Efforts to promote development and eradicate poverty
in Africa cannot be dissociated from our daily struggle to
safeguard peace and security. For our countries again this
year, preserving and consolidating a climate of peace and
stability have been the major imperative, given the many
real dangers.
Thus, the Government of Togo, traditionally inclined
to search for peace and stability, has spared no effort to try
to reconcile points of view whenever discord arises,
convinced that dialogue and cooperation should be
emphasized in the settlement of disputes and that any
conflict that may arise in any country of a subregion
represents a tragedy for the entire subregion, and perhaps
Africa as a whole.
Inspired by the spirit of subregional solidarity that,
under the President of our Republic, Mr. Gnassingbé
Eyadéma, current Chairman of the Authority of Heads of
State and Government of the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS), we have carried out
actions and taken appropriate initiatives to find negotiated
solutions to the crisis in Guinea-Bissau, the conflict in
Sierra Leone and the border dispute between Guinea and
Liberia.
Following the crisis that erupted in Guinea-Bissau in
June 1998, the efforts of the ECOWAS and the
Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries led to the
signing of a ceasefire and a peace Agreement in
November 1998. The subsequent deployment of an
ECOWAS Monitoring Group contingent with woefully
inadequate means did not allow us effectively to
implement the provisions of the Abuja Agreement and the
Lomé Protocol, nor did it entirely allay tensions. Despite
the brutal upheaval of the peace process on 7 May 1999,
the Security Council ratified the Secretary-General’s
proposal to maintain the United Nations office in Guinea-
Bissau with a new mandate. We hope that the
Organization and the international community will
continue to provide the necessary assistance to the people
of Guinea-Bissau, who so desperately need it. We
welcome the commitments undertaken that will ensure
respect for the elections of November 1997. We expect
that tranquility and security will return to Guinea-Bissau.
In Sierra Leone, thanks to the initiative and
determination of the ECOWAS heads of State and to the
support of the international community, the Government
of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front
signed, in our capital city of Lomé on 7 July 1999, a
Peace Agreement whose implementation will, we hope,
allow the people of Sierra Leone to embark decisively on
the path of national reconciliation, stability and
reconstruction. Thus, as I pointed out yesterday
before the Security Council in the context of the open
debate on the situation in Africa, the restoration is closely
linked to the implementation of the Lomé Peace
Agreement.
That is why I am pleased by the Secretary-General’s
proposal in his latest report on Sierra Leone to create a
United Nations force of 6,000 in that country, in keeping
with this Agreement. I am convinced that the Security
Council, which has already begun to consider the matter,
will authorize as soon as possible the deployment of that
force, which, in compliance with its mandate, will help
21

the Government of Sierra Leone to implement the stalled
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme.
We also wish particularly to thank the Government of
the United Kingdom, which chairs the international contact
group on Sierra Leone; the international organizations and
humanitarian agencies; and all those who have variously
contributed to restoring peace in that country. I recall the
fine spirit of solidarity that was manifest during the
negotiations on the Lomé Peace Agreement, which allowed
the representatives of the United States of America, the
United Kingdom, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the
Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, as
well as the permanent representatives of the United Nations
and the Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Sierra
Leone to pool their efforts around the seven-member
ECOWAS contact group, which worked tirelessly day and
night for success in Sierra Leone. That is why we feel that
the decision to embark as soon as possible on the
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme
with the dispatch of 6,000 United Nations blue helmets
would put an end to this war.
As for Liberia, the Ad Hoc Committee of the
Ministers for Foreign Affairs of ECOWAS met on 26
August 1999 in Lomé to study the destabilization of that
brotherly country. My delegation makes an urgent appeal to
the parties involved to respect the relevant provisions of the
ECOWAS Treaty and the non-aggression protocol signed in
Lagos on 22 April 1998 in order to allow the immediate
restoration of a climate of peace, security and confidence in
the subregion. In this respect, we were pleased by the
recent signing in Abuja, on 16 September, of the
understanding between the heads of State of Guinea and
Liberia during the ECOWAS mini-summit, held in the
capital of Nigeria. We also appeal to the international
community to provide the necessary support to countries of
the subregion that have borne the burden of refugees,
Guinea-Bissau in particular, so that they may address that
problem.
Elsewhere, the perpetuation of armed conflicts, with
their humanitarian consequences of all kinds, deeply
concerns my delegation. In this respect, we welcome the
signing in Lusaka on 12 July of the Ceasefire Agreement
between the main parties to the conflict in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and ardently call for a stronger
commitment of the Security Council to assist the Southern
African Development Community countries.
In Angola, we hope that the joint efforts of the United
Nations and the Organization of African Unity will allow
the people of that country to achieve reconciliation and
will encourage the restoration of peace and stability in
that country. In any case, Togo is determined to apply the
decisions of our United Nations with respect to the steps
taken against the belligerent parties in Angola.
As to the border dispute between Ethiopia and
Eritrea, my delegation sincerely hopes that these two
brotherly countries will truly embark on the path towards
a peaceful solution of their dispute.
It is comforting to note that real progress has been
made with regard to the crisis stemming from the
Lockerbie affair after many years of procrastination which
penalized the fraternal people of the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya. The Government of Togo believes that in
placing the two Lockerbie bombing suspects at the
disposal of the United Nations, Libya has met its
obligations under Security Council resolutions and that
the Security Council must immediately lift the sanctions
imposed on that country. This will contribute to ending
the suffering of our Libyan brothers, which has lasted too
long.
With regard to the Middle East, we reaffirm our
strong conviction that an era of lasting peace, stability and
security for all can come about only through the
continuation of the peace process and the most resolute
political will on all sides, based on Security Council
resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978) and
the principle of “land for peace”. In this context, the
Government of Togo welcomes developments in that
region, through steps recently taken by President Yasser
Arafat and Prime Minister Ehud Barak. We urge the
parties concerned to continue to work tirelessly to find
ways and means to allow the harmonious continuation of
the peace process.
One of the most important events that will have
most deeply marked this fading century is undeniably the
end of the cold war. Among other things, it resulted in
averting the spectre of a nuclear holocaust; at least, we
hope so.
Deeply attached to the principle of general and
complete disarmament under effective international
control, Togo is still concerned about nuclear
disarmament and the elimination of other weapons of
mass destruction. This is why we appeal for continued
efforts to put an end to the proliferation of nuclear arms
and the threats they entail.
22

The same applies to proliferation of and illicit
trafficking in light weapons and small arms in Africa. My
country welcomes United Nations initiatives to curtail and
contain this phenomenon, and hopes that the international
conference decided upon by the General Assembly in
resolution 53/77 E of 4 December 1998, and scheduled to
take place in Geneva in 2001, will make it possible to find
effective solutions to this problem.
I would also like to stress the role played in this
context by the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace
and Disarmament in Africa, which organized in Lomé, from
2 to 4 August 1999, a workshop on illicit trafficking in
light weapons. I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay
a well deserved tribute to the Secretary-General of our
Organization, who has just provided this Centre with a
Director, whose main task it is to revitalize its activities and
mobilize the necessary funds to finance its operational
expenses. Because of its important role in implementing the
Programme for Coordination and Assistance for Security
and Development, as well as in the destruction of arms
collected during the peace process in Liberia, we feel that
support for its work is urgently needed. In this connection,
we thank the Italian, Japanese, Norwegian and Swedish
Governments for their generous voluntary contributions and
reiterate our appeal to the international community to
provide financial and logistical support.
I turn to the functioning of our Organization. Here I
stress the fundamental role of the Security Council in
maintaining international peace and security. My delegation
reaffirms its support for all reforms to strengthen the
effectiveness of the Council and provide representation for
Africa, in the form of a permanent Member, in keeping
with the will of the heads of State and Government of the
Organization of African Unity.
Throughout its long history, my country has never
strayed from the purposes of our Organization. We have
often expressed and shown our dedication to the ideals of
peace and justice, as well as the principles of democracy
and the protection of human rights. Going beyond the social
and political crises that we have known in recent years, the
people of Togo are resolutely engaged in a new process of
national understanding and harmony, something I wish to
emphasize. On 19 July 1999, on the initiative of General
Eyadema, President of the Republic, an internal dialogue
bringing together all of the political actors of the country
was organized following preliminary meetings held at Paris
and Lomé between March and June 1999.
The opportunity was given to representatives of the
presidential leadership and of the Togolese opposition to
freely express themselves on the major issues of political
life in our country, under the arbitration of international
facilitators. In this regard, I would like to renew our
deepest gratitude to France, the Federal Republic of
Germany, the European Union and the International
Organization of La Francophonie for the important role
they played during these negotiations, which led to the
signing of a framework agreement on 29 July 1999. For
the implementation of the agreement, the Government has
shown itself ready to make all necessary concessions that
are in the national interest, it being understood that
national reconciliation is vital to the continuation of the
process of democratization and the consolidation of the
rule of law in Togo, as elsewhere.
We are sure that reason and the national interest will
prevail, so that the hopes of the people of Togo and the
international community are not disappointed.
The Government regards the signing of the
agreement as an important step in our resolute march
towards building a democratic society and bringing about
development. We therefore solemnly appeal to the
international community to resume effective cooperation
with Togo, in order to allow its population to enjoy the
fruits of democratization. Poverty is the enemy of
democracy.
The complexity of the issues and the many
challenges to be taken up at the dawn of the third
millennium call for a strengthening of international
cooperation and, above all, greater solidarity with Africa.
No nation, no country, whatever its resources and
abilities, can tackle these challenges alone. Cooperation
between the peoples of the United Nations is vital to us.
We must therefore act together, consolidating our
solidarity within the framework of our Organization,
which, after half a century of existence, has proved that
it is an irreplaceable tool at the service of mankind.
Togo, which once again proclaims its faith in the
United Nations, would encourage it to relentlessly pursue
in the century to come the achievement of its Charter
purposes.
May this session strengthen us in our common
struggle to consolidate peace, justice, freedom and
progress in the world and foster more understanding
between nations. Togo is ready to contribute to this effort.


Allow me to begin, Mr.
President, by extending to you the warmest congratulations
of the delegation of the Union of Myanmar on your
unanimous election as President of the General Assembly
at its fifty-fourth session. Heavy and onerous indeed are the
duties and responsibilities that fall upon you at this
particular session. The task before the President of the
General Assembly in any year is by no means easy. It is
even less so this year, as this session has the additional task
of undertaking the preparatory work for the millennium
session of next year. However, we are fully confident that
your great wealth of experience and outstanding diplomatic
skills will stand you in good stead in the discharge of your
responsibilities and that you will bring this session to a
successful conclusion. I pledge my delegation's fullest
cooperation for the advancement of the work of the
Assembly under your able leadership.
I also wish to pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr.
Opertti, for his invaluable contribution to the successful
conclusion of the previous session of the General
Assembly. Our tribute also goes to the Secretary-General,
Mr. Kofi Annan, for his untiring efforts in leading the
world Organization so effectively through these extremely
challenging and difficult years.
Myanmar consistently supports the principle of the
universality of membership of this world Organization. We
are therefore most delighted to see in our midst three new
Members this year. On behalf of the delegation of the
Union of Myanmar, I should like to extend our warmest
congratulations to the delegations of the Republic of
Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga,
which have taken their rightful places in the Assembly.
We live in a rapidly changing world. With the end of
the cold war, the old era of the bipolar world has become
a thing of the past. The world is in transition from the old
to the new world order, which has not fully taken shape. At
this critical juncture, the world is faced with uncertainties
and unsettling situations. Sometimes, the world has even
fallen victim to this turbulence and chaos.
In dealing with such situations, it is our view that any
solutions sought or measures taken, even with the best of
intentions, should be in strict conformity with the purposes
and principles of the United Nations Charter. Furthermore,
universally recognized principles governing international
relations and the principle of respect for State sovereignty
should be taken into account before resorting to measures
of an extreme nature in connection with a particular
situation.
One outstanding question relating to the reform of
the United Nations is the reform of the structure and
working methods of the Security Council. We are
encouraged to see that the General Assembly has taken a
significant procedural step by adopting a resolution on the
requirement of a two-thirds majority in taking decisions
and adopting resolutions on this question.
With regard to the core issue of enlargement of the
Security Council, there are various proposals on the table
regarding the possible size of the Council. As a member
State of the Non-Aligned Movement, our preference is for
enlargement of the Security Council up to 26 members.
We favour the expansion of the membership of the
Council in both categories, permanent and non-permanent.
In order to overcome the current impasse on the
question of permanent seats in the Security Council, a
compromise formula, acceptable to all parties, should be
worked out through enhanced consultations and
discussions among the Member States. We are of the
view that in the event other options fail to command
enough support, the idea of rotating permanent seats
should also be considered as one of the options in the
permanent membership category.
In the coming year, we are going to convene a
landmark Assembly, the Millennium Assembly, and the
millennium summit. It is crucially important that the
Millennium Assembly and summit should not be mere
ceremonial events, but should come up with concrete
ideas and results. As it is clearly evident that the greatest
challenge facing mankind well into the next millennium
will be economic development and poverty eradication for
the vast majority of people in the world, it is our view
that particular attention should be given to these issues.
Globalization can cut both positively and negatively.
It can bring us new opportunities as well as additional
problems. It is true that the process of globalization can
facilitate economic development and enhance the living
standards of people. But at the same time, it can make
smaller and less developed States vulnerable to the
undesirable negative effects of this process. One such
problem caused by the process of globalization, is
transnational crime, including illicit trafficking in narcotic
drugs, money-laundering, trafficking in persons, arms-
smuggling, piracy and terrorism. These crimes pose
serious threats to the peace and stability of mankind at
both national and regional levels. The nature of this
problem is such that it requires national, regional and
global responses.
36

I am pleased to inform the Assembly that in a bid to
strengthen cooperation in the regional grouping, Myanmar
hosted the second Association of South-East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) ministerial meeting on transnational crime in
June this year. The meeting was a success, and it
constituted a significant step in advancing regional
cooperation in combating this menace in the South-East
Asian region.
Let me also address the fight against narcotic drugs in
Myanmar. My Government is greatly concerned about the
drug menace, and the fight against narcotic drugs is
regarded as a national task and the top priority. A master
plan had been adopted to totally eradicate poppy cultivation
within 15 years, in cooperation with ethnic leaders who
signed peace agreements with the Government. In accord
with the master plan, many areas have been declared
opium-free zones and farmers are now turning to alternative
crops. Law enforcement has been stepped up in the border
areas, resulting in increased seizures of narcotic drugs.
While we are quite successful in the suppression of
opium and heroin production, though only scanty
international assistance has been received, another tide of
danger has emerged in the form of new synthetic drugs,
such as methamphetamine. The new drugs are produced
around our porous borders with precursor chemicals such
as ephedrine, unavailable locally, and drug-making
equipment illegally smuggled in from neighbouring
countries. We are redirecting our efforts to deal with the
new problem with the cooperation of the countries
concerned.
Allow me to take this opportunity to apprise the
Assembly briefly of the recent developments and trends
taking place in my country. My Government is against
neither democracy nor human rights. As a matter of fact,
we are taking necessary steps towards the establishment of
a democratic nation.
We have a vision of establishing a modern, peaceful
and developed democratic State. In order to bring this
vision into reality, we are reconsolidating national unity as
the number one priority. Necessary foundations are being
laid for the emergence of a nation where a disciplined and
multi-party democratic system fully functions and justice,
liberty and equality prevail.
We fully subscribe to the human rights norms
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Here, I wish to underscore that the Government does not
condone any violations of human rights, and the type of
democracy we envision will guarantee the protection and
promotion of human rights, particularly the right to the
satisfaction of basic human needs such as clothing, food
and shelter. If there is an imperative need for
improvement in areas of human rights, we are willing and
ready to receive sensible suggestions and take whatever
action we possibly can.
For instance, in the middle of this year, we received
a delegation from the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC) and made detailed arrangements for them
to visit the prisons in Myanmar, as a confidence-building
measure and to enable them to interview the inmates in
accordance with ICRC standard procedures. As a result of
the full cooperation we extended to the ICRC delegation,
those visits were successful and productive, enabling both
sides to build mutual trust and goodwill. I consider it
pertinent to state here that the ICRC delegation expressed
their satisfaction with the overall situation regarding the
relationship between the prison authorities and the
inmates.
Also, in August this year, Mr. Chris Sidoti, the
Australian Human Rights Commissioner, visited Myanmar
and held discussions with the authorities concerned,
including myself, on the possibility of establishing a
national human rights institution in Myanmar exchanges
of views on cooperation between the two countries on
human rights matters. As a result of this visit, we were
able to identify certain areas of cooperation between the
two countries.
In conformity with our consistent policy of
establishing friendly and amicable relations with all
countries, we accepted the proposal for the visit of the
Troika mission from the European Union to Myanmar in
July this year. The mission was a fact-finding one, and
both sides expressed their satisfaction with the result. It
is our hope that this mission will further strengthen our
relations with the European Union and pave the way for
enhancing our contacts and dialogue with it towards a
more meaningful and substantive level in the future.
Similarly, we would also like to seek better relations with
the United States of America. Furthermore, I would like
to confirm our willingness to receive Mr. Alvaro de Soto,
the Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-
General for Myanmar, to visit my country in the near
future.
Myanmar is a multi-ethnic society where many
national races with different and diverse cultural and
social backgrounds reside together. In addition, primarily
37

because of the “divide and rule” policy under colonial rule,
unity between the national races broke down and, as a
result, armed insurrections broke out all over the country.
For these reasons, the present Government came to the
conclusion that racial harmony was imperative and that, in
its absence, various issues would continue to hamper
national development endeavours. This rationale led the
Government to make peace overtures to the armed groups
and establish peace with them.
In order to restore trust and confidence between the
national races, the Government has even allowed the ethnic
armed groups to hold on to their weapons until a
democratic government is formally established under the
new constitution we are drafting now. This is a reflection
of our trust in our national brethren. At the same time, the
Government has launched an ambitious plan for the
development of border areas and the national races there.
Despite its meagre financial resources, the Government has
spent over 15 billion kyats on the plan. At present, the
national races are actively working together with the
Government in their regional development efforts. This
conscious and willing involvement in national development
tasks as equal partners has nurtured the Union spirit and
sense of togetherness. With 17 armed groups in the legal
fold, peace is holding the entire length and breadth of the
country.
As far as the question of national unity is concerned,
this is the first ever concrete result achieved, and it is
unprecedented in the number of armed groups involved and
the extent of peace established. This is a result we achieved
through sincere, genuine and open dialogue between the
Government and ethnic armed groups where we first built
confidence and then convinced each other of our respective
objectives. The Government is open to such a dialogue with
any remaining groups, including the Karen National Union
(KNU), where we could build confidence and identify
common ground in the sole interest of the country and its
people. In this regard, I wish to reiterate that the
Government's offer of peace to the KNU still stands.
As a matter of fact, the same dialogue is going on in
the national convention process, where representatives of
national races, political parties and delegates representing
all strata of life are actively involved in drafting a new
constitution to lay a solid foundation for a new democratic
political system. The national convention has been a
successful process whereby we have agreed on the basic
principles that will govern the future life of the country and
will allow self-administered zones for certain national
groups.
At this juncture, we are in the painful and arduous
process of building a consensus on power-sharing, which
is an extremely sensitive issue for all parties concerned.
In view of the delicate nature of this sensitive question,
it is vitally important for us to proceed systematically,
and with the greatest caution possible, to safeguard the
interests of all the national races and not to repeat the
shortcomings of the previous two constitutions.
We firmly believe that there is no better alternative
to the current national convention process if we genuinely
wish to transform the country into a peaceful, modern,
developed, and democratic State. It is therefore essential
for us to complete the national convention process.
In this connection, it is our ardent hope that the
international community will be supportive of our sincere
efforts and appreciative of the positive achievements we
have made thus far for the development of the country.
Myanmar is very often portrayed from outside as if
vast violations of human rights are taking place, forced
labour is rampant, a free flow of narcotics exists and
economic and social conditions are in chaos. These
portrayals are in contradiction to the true situation. Let
me cite here a widely known teaching of the Lord
Buddha called “Kalama Sutta”. The Sutta says:
“Oh, Ye Kalamas, do not be led by whatever
you are told; do not be led by whatever has been
handed down from the past generation; do not be led
by hearsay or common opinion; do not be led by
whatever the scriptures say; do not be led by mere
logic; do not be led by mere deduction or inference;
do not be led by considering outward appearance; do
not be led by theory reflected as approval; do not be
led by whatever a believable one says; and do not be
led by what your teacher tells you is so”.
In short, Lord Buddha taught us to accept and practice
only when we ourselves know which is wrong and which
is right.
Everyone who visits Myanmar can see the greenness
of the country, peace and tranquillity prevailing
throughout the nation, people leading their normal daily
lives with happiness and pleasure and building their
nation with zest and zeal. The people have full knowledge
that they are on the right path to peace and prosperity. I
would like to invite all of you to come and see for
yourselves. Seeing is believing!
38

Our nation is still in the process of building; solid
foundations are being laid, and infrastructure is being
improved throughout the country. The Government and the
people fully understand where we were, where we are now
and in which direction we are moving. We think of
ourselves as builders, carpenters and plumbers building a
house not to enjoy ourselves, but for all the people, who
are its rightful owners. When the building is finished,
furnished, furbished and fine-touched, it will be handed
over to them. The people will decide who will manage the
house.
There are some Myanmar youths who abandoned our
land and took refuge elsewhere. I should like to take this
opportunity to send them a message from this podium that
they will be welcomed with open arms if they return home,
and I would like to invite them to join us in building the
nation. Our future is in our hands. If we work together, we
will reach our goal sooner rather than later.
Religious harmony and freedom are our shared
tradition. Our previous two Constitutions provided for
safeguards against religious discrimination and religious
intolerance. Similarly, the fundamental principles we have
agreed on in the national convention process guarantee
religious indiscrimination and religious tolerance. Although
Myanmar is a predominantly Buddhist country, with nearly
90 per cent of the population professing Buddhism, the
Government attaches great importance to harmonious
relations among the major religions existing in the country.
Accordingly, the Government has taken all necessary steps
to encourage the prevailing harmony among the religions
through continuous contacts with the respective religious
leaderships and the provision of necessary assistance in
both financial and material terms to enable them to promote
their faiths effectively. I want to state here that there is
freedom of religion for all faiths in the country. It is also
worth recalling here that a few years ago Madam Ogata, the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, remarked
in her capacity as Independent Expert of the Commission
on Human Rights, that Myanmar was a model society as far
as religious tolerance was concerned. Though these remarks
were made some time ago, I wish to stress that they remain
valid and true to this day, and that the Government is
determined to safeguard to the best of its ability all the
religions of the country against intolerance, and to help
them in all possible ways to coexist harmoniously with each
other.
I cannot conclude without mentioning what my
country is achieving on the economic front. Despite some
slowdown in economic growth due to the Asian financial
crisis, Myanmar has enjoyed considerable economic
growth in recent years. The emphasis of the Government
is to promote private sector development and
privatization. At the same time, the Government is
focusing its endeavours on the development of the
infrastructure as a precondition for sustained development.
Moreover, the Government is carrying out an extensive
programme of land reclamation in wet and virgin lands by
granting large land holdings to the private companies. The
private sector has been able to reclaim and develop 1.1
million acres of fallow land and wetlands for agricultural
production, which will not only help domestic food
supply but will also contribute to regional food security.
We have a vision for the new millennium, a vision
of building a peaceful, modern, developed and democratic
society. We will endeavour to realize our vision with
whatever resources we have at our disposal. The
realization of this goal could be accelerated if we receive
the support of the international community. We are
optimistic that we will be able to achieve our vision, and
that the international community will demonstrate
understanding and appreciation of our sincere efforts to
uplift the economic and social well-being of the people of
Myanmar.