Let me extend to you,
Mr. Vice-President, my warmest congratulations on your
election.
The Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Jacques
Poos, spoke on behalf of the European Union. I fully
associate myself with his statement.
The reform of the United Nations is inevitable. The
new imperatives of globalization and interdependence
must be recognized. Business as usual would inevitably
lead to the marginalization of the United Nations in world
affairs. I fully agree with Secretary-General Kofi Annan
that we should see these changes as an opportunity, not
as a threat.
Reform is in the interest of all Member States,
whether big or small, whether industrialized or developing
countries. Where else but at the United Nations can we
deal with the truly global issues such as the new security
threats of uncivil society, environmental degradation,
violations of human rights and poverty? Given the nature
of these issues, unilateral, bilateral or even regional
efforts are of course good, but not enough. Not even the
most prosperous and powerful nations on earth can
8

successfully solve them alone. Only the United Nations has
a global mandate and global legitimacy.
The Secretary-General’s proposals are well attuned to
our thinking in Finland. The General Assembly should
consider these proposals as a coherent whole and give the
Secretary-General the authority to act on them during this
session. For our part, we, the Member States, must shoulder
our responsibility for those reforms that require action by
Governments.
Human rights must become an integral part of all
United Nations activities. We very much welcome the
Secretary-General’s comprehensive approach in this regard.
The celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights next year must
produce practical results. The celebration is an opportunity
to emphasize that human rights are universal rights that
belong to all individuals, irrespective of culture or political
systems. The duty of Governments is to promote, secure
and protect these rights. Therefore, the international
community has the authority to deal with human rights
violations wherever they may occur. There is no difference
between big or small States in this respect. Europe is by no
means an exception. The common standards must be valid
everywhere. The United Nations has a unique role to play
because of its global reach. I personally respect and support
regional arrangements and efforts to this end, but they must
be in accordance with common United Nations standards.
There is a genuine and growing demand for United
Nations action in the field. The United Nations response
today is hampered by inadequate resources. I pledge my
Government’s full support to Mary Robinson, the newly
appointed High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her
important and challenging task.
We in Finland are very serious people. We try to
practise what we preach. Promoting human rights, including
minority rights, is an integral part of our domestic policy
and naturally extends to foreign policy. As a new feature,
the Government intends to submit an annual report to
Parliament on the human rights situation in the world. We
hope such reports can and will contribute to a more regular
and informed public debate on human rights issues.
The United Nations has extensive experience in crisis
management and peacekeeping. Lessons have been learned.
One key lesson is the need to prevent emerging conflicts
rapidly and coherently. Rapid decision-making is imperative
both in the Security Council and at the national level. Once
the political decisions are made, they should be
implemented effectively and without delay. That is why
we strongly support the establishment of a rapidly
deployable mission headquarters. Finland has contributed
to it financially and is also ready to make personnel
available. We urge the Secretary-General to establish the
headquarters without further delay.
The recent local elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina
were undoubtedly a success. The implementation of their
results is the challenge for the coming weeks and months.
The Dayton peace process is advancing, but at a
disappointingly slow pace. Restoring normal living
conditions will require major efforts by all the parties in
the region. The international community, the United
Nations and other organizations will have a tremendous
task in assisting people to help themselves in this
devastated region. The High Representative for the
Implementation of the Peace Agreement on Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Mr. Carlos Westendorp, deserves our full
support in securing the implementation of the Sintra
agreements. There is also a need for the continued
peacekeeping presence of the Stabilization Force (SFOR)
or its successor force.
Africa is the one continent most ravaged by violent
conflicts and human suffering. The special session of the
Security Council on Africa at the ministerial level is
therefore a timely initiative. Crisis prevention and
peacekeeping capabilities in Africa should be developed
as a priority. We welcome the efforts already under way
within the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and
other regional and subregional settings. However, these
efforts need wider international support. Finland is
prepared to continue to do its part by providing assistance
in training. We are also organizing in Helsinki, Finland,
together with the OAU, a broad-based international
conference of non-governmental organizations to promote
their international involvement in strengthening peace-
building in Africa.
In the Middle East, events over the past year have
taken a dangerous turn for the worse. Fulfilment of the
obligations of the Oslo accords, and with it real
improvement in the daily lives of the Palestinians, is still
the best hope the parties have for a just and lasting peace.
A turn for the better is first and foremost for the parties
themselves to achieve. We urge them to exercise restraint
in actions and in words. Finland, together with its
European Union partners, is prepared to continue to play
its part in supporting the peace process, but clearly the
9

parties themselves must play theirs for there to be a process
to support.
The hopes for the peace process should not be
betrayed in the face of provocation, humiliation or
frustration. Terrorism is unacceptable. It only benefits the
extremists on both sides.
In disarmament, the focus is shifting from weapons of
mass destruction towards conventional arms, including
small arms, as so many colleagues of mine have already
mentioned here. The suffering caused by indiscriminate use
of landmines is high on the United Nations agenda, and
rightly so.
Finland welcomes the Ottawa convention. It is a step
towards a truly global and effective ban on anti-personnel
landmines, a target which my Government strongly
supports. The Ottawa process contains a promise, but it is
clear that much work is still needed. Participation in a total
ban, particularly by those who are major possessors,
producers and exporters of these weapons, must be secured
through negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament.
Finland will continue to participate actively in the
Conference’s efforts to stop the further spread of anti-
personnel landmines through a global and effective treaty.
The positive trend in disarmament and
non-proliferation has been strengthened by the entry into
force of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the
bilateral commitments made by the Russian Federation and
the United States regarding nuclear disarmament at the
Helsinki summit. To assure further progress, these
developments should now be followed up by Russian
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the
START II agreement.
Finland has consistently advocated a strong United
Nations, mandated and capable of addressing socio-
economic and development issues in an effective and
coordinated manner. In today’s world, globalization of the
economy, trade liberalization and the information revolution
have created an environment of interdependence. Poverty,
the root cause of so many other ills, can be eliminated only
through sustainable development.
Finland, together with the other Nordic countries, has
long spoken for a more unified United Nations system, both
at Headquarters and at the country level. The Secretary-
General’s proposals go in the right direction. The creation
of the United Nations Development Group is an important
first step. Full integration at country level of all United
Nations activities, including those of the specialized
agencies, must remain the goal.
The Economic and Social Council and the web of
organizations and committees operating within it need to
be united in purpose and in action. The proposed reforms
do not suffice. The coordinating role of the Council
should be made real. To achieve this is the responsibility
of the Member States. If we do not take action, the
Council will sink into irrelevance.
Similarly, a more coherent United Nations response
is required to provide protection and humanitarian
assistance to the victims of disasters, whether made by
man or nature. The Emergency Relief Coordinator must
ensure coherence and coordination in disaster relief. In
that role, the Coordinator must receive the full support of
all the humanitarian agencies.
On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of this
Organization, I remember, more than 150 Heads of State
or Government pledged their resolve to bring an end to
the United Nations financial crisis. Today, two years later,
only 89 Member States — I checked the figure today —
have paid their dues in full and without conditions, and
many of them did so late. More than half of the
membership have not. Yet there are very few Member
States whose non-payment stems from circumstances
beyond their control, the only waiver known to the United
Nations Charter. Non-payment is, in our view, a serious
threat to the future of the United Nations, not only
because of the unfair burden put on Member States that
do pay, such as my country, but because it undermines
the commitment and the solidarity that we as Member
States share towards our common Organization and
among ourselves.
Finland understands the motivation behind the
Secretary-General’s proposal for a revolving credit fund.
However, such a fund — as we have understood it —
would use voluntary contributions to cover unpaid legal
dues. The United Nations might gain some respite, but so
would the countries in arrears. Finland is not opposed to
exploring this proposal if others so wish and if the
establishment of such a fund is accompanied by real
sanctions in case of non-payment of assessed
contributions.
Yesterday, we heard the Secretary-General in his
statement ask the Governments assembled here to make
the fifty-second session of the General Assembly a
10

“Reform Assembly”. This is a challenge that we and our
Organization cannot afford to fail.


First of all, I would like to
congratulate the President on his election to his high office,
which convincingly proves that the international prestige of
Ukraine, one of the founders of the United Nations, is
widely recognized. For the current session, which is being
held in the spirit of renewal of this world forum, it is very
symbolic.
I also with to express our appreciation to the previous
President, Mr. Razali Ismail, for his considerable
contribution to the successful work of the fifty-first session
of the General Assembly.
Kazakhstan believes that in the twenty-first century the
United Nations should become a highly effective instrument
that will help to make a smooth transition to real
multipolarity, establish global economic partnership and
democratize international relations. For our part, we stand
ready to contribute to the adoption within the United
Nations of important decisions on the urgent issues of
today.
The Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has
undertaken to carry out a daunting mission of reforming
the Organization. Nothing could be harder than to live in
times of change; it is all the harder to be the maker of the
changes. This is why we are fully on the side of the man
at the head of the United Nations, and we welcome his
initiatives and his course of action. Kazakhstan supports
the Secretary-General’s proposals regarding a more
efficient leadership and management structure, a new
management culture and structural transformations within
the Organization.
We support measures taken by the United Nations to
ensure sustainable development. In our view, the proposed
United Nations Development Group deserves
endorsement. At the same time, it is important to preserve
the independence and the distinctiveness of the funds and
programmes that are being consolidated, especially the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), a reputable
organization that is doing so much for the sake of
children, including its work in Kazakhstan.
The financial crisis of the United Nations is an
urgent issue demanding a solution. The programme of
reforms proposed by the Secretary-General provides for
measures to redress the situation in which the
Organization has found itself. There is no doubt that the
improvement of the financial situation of the United
Nations depends on the fulfilment by Member States of
their obligations to the Organization. Despite the
economic difficulties of the transition period, Kazakhstan
is trying to honour its financial obligations. At the same
time, we consider it imperative to further improve the
scale of assessment on the basis of real ability to pay.
Kazakhstan, as one of the States that have joined the
system of stand-by arrangements, supports the
strengthening of the Organization’s capacity to carry out
preventive and peacekeeping activities. We welcome the
Secretary-General’s proposals on the issues of
disarmament and regulation of armaments, and we
support his measures regarding human rights, organized
crime, drugs and terrorism.
Kazakhstan is ready to join in efforts to strengthen
the role of the General Assembly in dealing with burning
international issues. Our country is in favour of convening
a special “Millennium Assembly” in the year 2000. This
idea is in consonance with President Nursultan
17

Nazarbaev’s initiative to convene on the eve of the twenty-
first century a special session of the General Assembly
devoted to reform.
In our opinion, United Nations reforms should be
carried out in an integrated manner, at different levels and
in different directions. At the same time, it is impossible to
ignore that the key element of these reforms is the reform
of the Security Council itself. Kazakhstan has repeatedly
declared its support for Germany and Japan as candidates
for permanent membership of the Council. Supporting the
enlargement of the Council in both categories of its
members, we believe it is possible to include as its
permanent members representatives of the developing
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America in order to
ensure a balance of interests and an adequate reflection of
existing geopolitical realities. It is important to keep in
mind, however, that to preserve the Security Council’s
efficiency, the number of its members should be limited. At
the same time, we think it is necessary to show proper
respect and to pay attention to other proposals coming from
other States.
Kazakhstan has on several occasions used this high
rostrum to stress the need to strengthen the United Nations
activities in the area of the environment. For our country
these activities have special importance. For this reason,
addressing the nineteenth special session of the United
Nations General Assembly last June, the President of
Kazakhstan once again drew the attention of the
international community to the acute environmental
problems inherited by our country. I refer to ecological
disaster areas of the Aral Sea and the former Semipalatinsk
nuclear testing ground.
The problem of the Aral Sea has a global dimension.
Particles of salt sediments from this region have been found
in Europe, as well as in the Arctic Ocean. The Aral Sea
region is witnessing a disastrous shortage of fresh water, a
worsening of the population’s health and the degradation of
the natural environment.
Some 470 nuclear explosions have been conducted at
the Semipalatinsk testing ground, which used to be the
largest in the world. Enormous damage has been caused to
the health of the population and the natural environment.
We believe that nuclear weapons represent a tragedy that
affects all the peoples of the world. With that in mind, our
Head of State has spoken about the responsibility of the
nuclear Powers for the damage caused to the population
and the natural environment of the States where nuclear
tests were conducted. Such responsibility could be
shouldered by setting up an international fund for the
rehabilitation of the health of the population and the
environment of the regions affected by nuclear-weapon
tests.
Our President’s decision to close the Semipalatinsk
testing ground should be considered as a major
contribution to nuclear disarmament of historic
significance. This month Kazakhstan hosted an
international conference on nuclear non-proliferation,
initiated by President Nazarbaev. Participants visited the
former testing ground and became further convinced of
the need to assist Kazakhstan, which is overcoming the
consequences of nuclear tests conducted for more than
half a century.
In this respect, the strengthening of environmental
security has the highest priority for the region of Central
Asia. Accordingly, at a meeting held in Almaty last
February, the Heads of the Central Asian States adopted
a Declaration proclaiming 1998 a Year of Environmental
Protection in our region and highlighting the need to
establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia. We
are grateful to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for
his support for the idea of establishing such a zone, in his
message addressed to the participants in the Semipalatinsk
conference.
As a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,
Kazakhstan is firmly committed to the non-proliferation
regime, and considers it important to actively contribute
to its further strengthening. Our State vigorously supports
the objectives of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty. We believe that the signing of this document was
one of the most important and historic events of this
century, which is nearing its end. We call on all States to
adhere to this Treaty.
Recognizing the importance of a deep reduction in
the number of conventional weapons having
indiscriminate effects, Kazakhstan took a decision to
declare a moratorium, effective 6 August 1997, on the
export of anti-personnel mines, including the re-export
and transit thereof.
Kazakhstan has taken consistent steps to strengthen
security and stability at the regional level. Nursultan
Nazarbaev’s initiative to convene a Conference on
Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia,
first put forward at the forty-seventh session of the
General Assembly, is shaping up on the practical plane.
We are planning to convene, in 1998, a meeting of
18

Foreign Ministers of interested States to discuss security
issues in Asia.
The formation of a Central Asian battalion under the
auspices of the United Nations has become a factor of
stability in the Central Asian region and provides clear
evidence of the implementation of the proposal made by
our Head of State. Recently, its first exercises were
successfully conducted in Kazakhstan.
The signing of unique agreements between
Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and the People’s
Republic of China on confidence-building measures and the
reduction of armed forces in the border region should be
considered as a major achievement in the area of
international security.
We note with satisfaction the signing in June of the
General Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and
National Accord in Tajikistan, which represents a
significant breakthrough in the settlement, under the
auspices of the United Nations, of the longest-running
conflict among the post-Soviet countries. Kazakhstan is one
of the guarantors of the peace process in Tajikistan. We
believe that all those concerned should ensure the adoption
of practical measures to facilitate the implementation of the
agreements concluded, the delivery of international
humanitarian assistance and the reconstruction of the
national economy.
We are seriously concerned by the continued armed
confrontation in Afghanistan. We in Kazakhstan are
convinced that peace in that country can be achieved
through political negotiations, under the auspices of the
United Nations, between all the parties involved in this
conflict in order to establish peace and form a Government
of national unity in that country, which has suffered so
much.
Kazakhstan, which is committed to the ideas of
renewal, has firmly embarked on a course of economic
reform and the democratization of social life. Reforms in
our country have become irreversible. The privatization of
the economy is being completed, the level of inflation has
been steadily low, the national currency is stable and liquid,
and for the first time in a little more than five years of
independence we have registered economic growth.
Kazakhstan is open to the outside world and offers
considerable investment opportunities. Our State is leading
the Commonwealth of Independent States in per capita
foreign investments. We strongly believe that very soon
Kazakhstan will firmly take its place in global integration
processes and become a fully fledged member of major
economic associations and organizations.
We should like to express our appreciation to the
United Nations for its support for President Nazarbaev’s
proposal to create a joint body for Central Asia under two
regional Commissions, the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) and the United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific (ESCAP). In a few days’ time, the heads of these
Commissions will come to our country. A special ECE-
ESCAP programme for Central Asian States is under
way. A joint office of the two organizations is to be
opened in Almaty.
I would like to make special mention of the
activities of the Economic Cooperation Organization
(ECO). Seven new States, including Kazakhstan, joined
ECO not very long ago. Nevertheless, the ECO member
States have managed to reach promising levels of
cooperation and interaction. The declaration adopted at
the ECO summit last May provides an opportunity to
create new transportation corridors and routes to transport
hydrocarbons, and the ECO member States, as well as
many other countries in Asia and Europe, are equally
interested in their development.
How the Organization will look when it enters the
twenty-first century will depend on the decisions we take
in the follow-up to our discussions of United Nations
reform. Years ago, an enormous internal capacity was
built into the United Nations Charter. The United Nations
was designed for a world based on the principles of
partnership and cooperation, not on all-out confrontation.
Also important is the fact that the United Nations Charter,
which might be called an institutional pillar of the
Organization, is a highly balanced document, free of any
visible bias in one direction or another, and this has
allowed it to become, one might say, a code of modern
international relations that no civilized State has any right
to ignore. The decisions that are being taken should be as
balanced as possible and should not amount to stop-gap
and ad hoc measures. That is one of the main demands
with regard to United Nations reform.
The United Nations should come out of the reform
process renewed, more effective and more efficient.


The illustrious election of the President of the
General Assembly of the United Nations at its fifty-
second session is not only a well-deserved tribute to his
country, Ukraine, in recognition of its important role on
the international scene, but an acknowledgement of his
own human and professional qualities and, above all, his
rich experience in international relations and in the United
Nations system. Furthermore, as his former colleague
when I was Permanent Representative of my own country
here for many years, I am personally delighted at this
well-deserved demonstration of the confidence the
international community has in him. It is therefore a
pleasure for me, on behalf of the delegation of Côte
d’Ivoire, to address to him and to the other members of
the Bureau our sincere congratulations and to assure him
of our full support in the accomplishment of his mission.
21

I also extend my heartfelt thanks to his predecessor,
Ambassador Razali Ismail, for his remarkable efforts to
give decisive impetus to the process of the reform of our
Organization.
Finally, I should like to extend my warmest
congratulations to Mr. Kofi Annan, a worthy son of Africa,
on his illustrious election as Secretary-General of the
United Nations, and I pay heartfelt tribute to him for the
great competence that he has unfailingly demonstrated at
the head of the United Nations. In less than a year he has
been able to instil our Organization with a new dynamism
through actions that bear witness to his firm will to
strengthen the effectiveness and credibility of the United
Nations and to improve its operations in facing the many
complex demands of the world at the dawn of a new
millennium. We assure him of the support of the delegation
of Côte d’Ivoire in his noble and exhilarating task.
I also take this opportunity to extend my warm
congratulations to Mrs. Mary Robinson on her appointment
to the post of United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights. We consider her strong personality to be a
guarantee of success in the delicate and important mission
with which she has been entrusted. We assure her of our
complete support in the exercise of her new functions.
Today, regardless of what our assessment of the work
of the United Nations may be, it is necessary to recognize
that it remains a unique and irreplaceable tool for dialogue
among nations at the service of international peace and
security.
Clearly, it is unanimously held that the United Nations
is useful and that it must exist; with equal unanimity we
call for its revitalization. The question of the reform of the
United Nations is thus at the heart of this session, which
strikingly demonstrates how necessary and urgent it is. The
Secretary-General rightly proclaimed this session the
session of reform.
Adapting the United Nations to make it better able to
enter the next millennium seems to be the great challenge
of the reform to which we all aspire.
But before expressing my delegation’s observations on
the Secretary-General’s proposals for reform, I should like
to share some of our major concerns, which I believe must
be taken into account if the continent to which my country
belongs is to experience real development commensurate
with its immense potential. I wish to speak about conflict
management in Africa and international cooperation for
the economic and social development of Africa.
One cannot fail to note that over 60 per cent of the
agenda of the Security Council is devoted to situations in
Africa, and that of the 48 least developed countries, 35
are in Africa.
In respect of conflicts in Africa, our continent has
taken charge of its own destiny. To this end, it established
legal instruments at the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) summit in Cairo in 1993, in the form of the
Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and
Resolution. If this venture is going to work Africa needs
above all the support of the international community in
the framework of a partnership with the United Nations,
in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter.
Thus in Liberia, at the end of a seven-year fratricidal
war which devastated that fraternal country and caused
enormous damage to neighbouring countries such as
Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire that had to deal with massive
flows of refugees and displaced persons, the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was able
to broker a peace process which led to the election of
Mr. Charles G. Taylor as President of the Republic on 19
July 1997 in elections that the OAU and the United
Nations recognized as just and democratic.
In the context of the meeting to support the
reconstruction of Liberia which will take place tomorrow,
I would like to make an urgent appeal to donor countries
and international and non-governmental organizations to
be generous, because a reconstructed and prosperous
Liberia can only benefit our entire subregion.
While we are delighted at the positive development
of the situation in Liberia, a military coup d’état on 25
May 1997 put an end to the constitutional order in Sierra
Leone by overthrowing a democratically elected President,
Mr. Ahmad Tejan Kabbah. Côte d’Ivoire immediately
condemned the coup d’état, which belongs to a bygone
era.
The thirty-third meeting of heads of State and
Government of the OAU, held in Harare from 2 to 4 June
1997, by its decision 356 also condemned the coup d’état,
as did the Secretary-General of the United Nations and
the Presidents of the Security Council on 27 May, 11 July
and 6 August 1997, who all demanded the immediate and
unconditional restoration of constitutional order.
22

Unfortunately, the negotiations initiated by the group
of five States mandated by ECOWAS with the
representatives of the junta in power in Freetown have so
far not succeeded in achieving the objectives of the
international community. Therefore, the heads of State,
during the last ECOWAS summit, in Abuja on 28 and 29
August 1997, were obliged to take a certain number of
measures which we hope will be endorsed by the Security
Council to allow the Committee of Five to resume, with the
complete support of the international community, new
negotiations for a return to constitutional order in Sierra
Leone, a country whose instability remains a serious threat
to the fledgling Liberian democracy and the entire
subregion.
In the view of the OAU, ECOWAS and the Security
Council, the Abidjan peace agreement of 30 November
1996, signed by President Kabbah and the leader of the
Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Mr. Foday Sankoh,
remains the best framework for finding a definitive solution
to the crisis in Sierra Leone. Once constitutional order is
restored, Côte d’Ivoire is prepared to organize, together
with the other guarantors of this agreement and the parties
concerned, a conference aimed at reactivating the many
organs of that agreement in order to find a lasting solution
to this crisis.
In Central Africa, we remain profoundly concerned by
the fratricidal battles now taking place in the Congo. In this
respect, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to
Mr. Omar Bongo, President of the Gabonese Republic, for
his patient and courageous mediation in the inter-Congolese
conflict. While urging him to continue his noble efforts, we
regret the deterioration of the situation and above all the
fact that no cease-fire has been accepted by the warring
parties, which has prevented the establishment of an
African interposition force.
In the Central African Republic, we welcome the role
of the Inter-African Mission to Monitor the Implementation
of the Bangui Agreements (MISAB), which has helped
stabilize the situation.
In respect of the crisis in the Comoros, we urgently
appeal to all parties to give priority to dialogue and to
respond favourably to the OAU initiative with a view to
holding a conference in Addis Ababa to find a solution. We
invite the international community to support the efforts of
the OAU and to give the Comoros all the economic and
financial assistance it needs to confront the difficulties it is
facing, which are the root cause of the crisis.
With regard to Angola, we take note of the recent
Security Council resolution 1130 (1997), which was
adopted unanimously. While we welcome the recent
measures taken by UNITA in response to the Council’s
appeal, we hope that it will persevere in that direction in
order to meet all its obligations pursuant to the Lusaka
Protocol.
Finally, in respect of the question of Western Sahara,
we applaud the progress made during the series of
meetings under the auspices of the Special Envoy of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations for Western
Sahara, Mr. James Baker III, with a view to holding a
referendum on self-determination.
Given the renewed upsurge of instability and conflict
in many parts of Africa, we fervently appeal to the United
Nations to organize a regional conference in collaboration
with the OAU and ECOWAS to deal with the illicit
circulation of small arms in the West African subregion,
in accordance with General Assembly resolution 51/45.
In the same context, we are delighted with the
results of the Oslo conference on anti-personnel
landmines, and in view of the human disasters that this
type of weapon continues to cause in Africa and the
world over, we urge all States to adhere to the results and
respect the terms.
My delegation believes that the present state of our
continent requires a concerted policy of international
security and implementation of preventive strategies, and
Côte d’Ivoire intends to be actively involved. This is why,
in defining recently new missions for Côte d’Ivoire’s
armed forces, President Henri Konan Bédié specified that
they can henceforth participate in peacekeeping operations
and that they stand ready to carry out possible protection
and security missions which might be conferred upon
them by the international community.
More specifically, it seems to us increasingly
necessary to have a standing African interposition force.
In western Africa, for example, ECOWAS, drawing from
the experience of the ECOWAS Monitoring Group
(ECOMOG) in the settlement of the Liberian conflict,
could envisage the reorganization of this force in order to
make it a genuine subregional force. In this context,
consultations for the establishment of a peacekeeping
force are under way in the framework of the Agreement
on Non-Aggression and Assistance in Matters of Defense
(ANAD) which includes Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Burkina
Faso, Benin, Niger, Mali, Mauritania and Togo.
23

The elements of the ANAD peacekeeping force would
be coordinated in predetermined tactical or logistical
modules in a state of operational readiness on their
respective territories and could be sent into action at short
notice. These stand-by elements could be regrouped at the
request of ECOWAS, the OAU or the United Nations.
However effective our rapid-reaction capacity may be,
we will have to seek, above all, to strengthen the effective
rule of democracy and the rule of law in each of our
countries in order to avoid crises turning into armed
conflict.
Above all, every country must seek to achieve political
stability and to promote social progress by establishing
reliable democratic institutions based on freedom and
justice and which guarantee the protection of the citizen and
individual rights. We must develop the elements of good
governance and promote the emergence of responsible
society.
For its part, Côte d’Ivoire under the leadership of
President Henri Konan Bédié, is endeavouring day by day
to strengthen democracy and the rule of law by resolute
action towards a peaceful democracy.
Recent measures in this connection have been
announced, including the forthcoming opening of the
Government to the opposition, the granting of status to the
leaders of the opposition parties represented in Parliament;
the creation of a Senate whose President will be acting
Head of State in the event of a power vacuum; and the
creation of a National Commission for monitoring and
arbitration of elections. It will be presided over by a judge
and made up of personalities and representatives of the
leading political parties, along with international observers
from the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the United
Nations, the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS), the European Union and the Canadian
Electoral Committee. All of those elements are contributing
to speeding the progress of democracy in Côte d’Ivoire.
Lastly, our people remain profoundly committed to the
culture of peace, and it is to that commitment that Côte
d’Ivoire owes its unquestioned political stability, based on
the constancy of social dialogue and on the desire for
shared progress that strengthens social unity. That is why
my delegation, along with a number of co-sponsors, intends
to submit to this session of the General Assembly, as it did
at the summer session of the Economic and Social Council
held last July at Geneva, a draft resolution proclaiming the
year 2000 as the international year for the culture of peace.
My second subject of concern relates to the effects
of globalization on African economies with respect to
access to foreign markets, the volume of official
development assistance and favourable treatment for
foreign debt.
With regard to access to foreign markets,
globalization, carried out in the name of liberalization and
competitiveness, has led to the erosion and even the
eradication of preferences that allow the goods of our
countries to gain access to the markets of developed
countries. We must be given time to adapt, or be
compensated in some other way, if our countries are to
participate in international trade to their full potential. We
commend the recent United States initiative, “Growth and
opportunity in Africa”, which is aimed, inter alia, at
promoting the access of African goods to the American
market.
With regard to the effect of globalization on the
volume of official development assistance, we note that
for all the enthusiasm for the development of the private
sector — development which we welcome, recognizing
that private investment is the driving force of economic
growth — a trend towards a decline in official
development assistance, despite its importance in the fight
against poverty in our countries. That trend concerns us,
because official development assistance is essential in
supporting our domestic efforts, above all in sectors
related to the development of human resources. We
therefore urge the donor countries to redouble their efforts
to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of their gross
domestic product.
Lastly, with regard to the question of foreign debt,
there is now broad agreement that without favourable
treatment for the stock of African debt, particularly in the
most heavily indebted countries, no economic recovery
programme can produce the desired long-term positive
effects. We must therefore insist that serious consideration
be given to measures in this regard. We welcome the
measures recently taken in favour of Uganda, Bolivia and
Burkina Faso within the framework of the debt-alleviation
Initiative of the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank and the Paris Club. I am delighted to learn that my
own country, Côte d’Ivoire, along with Mozambique and
Guyana, will be the next to benefit from that Initiative. I
would also note that my country is involved in a
satisfactory dialogue with the London Club with a view
to a significant restructuring of our commercial debt.
24

Turning to the question of United Nations reform,
which lies at the heart of this session, we must distinguish
between two aspects that dovetail to form a single coherent
and logical unit. We have on the one hand the reforms
being set in motion by Member States and on the other the
programme of reforms proposed by the Secretary-General
in his report (A/51/950) of 14 July 1997.
With regard to the reforms being driven by Member
States, I would refer to the activities of various open-ended
Working Groups of the General Assembly. Having
personally been privileged to conduct the consultations that
led to the establishment of three of those Groups during my
own term of office as President of the forty-ninth session,
I am pleased to note the relatively positive results of two of
them: the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on An
Agenda for Development and the Open-ended High-Level
Working Group on the Strengthening of the United Nations
System. The States participating in those Groups have
shown a magnificent spirit of solidarity.
The Agenda for Development, adopted last June by
the General Assembly, is an important stage in the dialogue
between nations on international cooperation for
development. It establishes the consensus framework within
which developed and developing countries can work to
establish on a more solid basis a renewed and strengthened
partnership for development based on mutual advantage.
The Open-ended High-Level Working Group on the
Strengthening of the United Nations System, which has had
to deal mainly with the revitalization of the General
Assembly and the Secretariat, has produced
recommendations that are part of the dynamics of the
reforms proposed by the Secretary-General, inter alia, to
rationalize the work of the General Assembly and its
subsidiary bodies. My delegation is pleased with those
positive results.
With regard to the High-Level Open-ended Working
Group on the Financial Situation of the United Nations and
the Open-ended Working Group on the reform of the
Security Council, we cannot help but feel frustrated that
they are apparently bogged down and have not made the
expected progress.
We are all aware of the crucial importance of the
financial situation of the United Nations. The success of the
entire reform process depends on a solution to that
question. We should like to reaffirm here the need for all
Member States to fulfil their obligations under Article 19 of
the Charter, namely, to honour their financial obligations
towards the United Nations fully, on time and without
conditions. Similarly, we express our complete support for
the principle of capacity to pay as a basis for the scale of
assessments. We believe it is necessary to deal with those
questions courageously and responsibly in order to
provide our Organization with a viable, sound and solid
financial base.
Turning to the important question of Security
Council reform, our position is that of the African Group
as defined at the recent Summit Meeting of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) at Harare, which
stressed that the new configuration of the Security
Council must reflect the realities of today’s world through
a geographically equitable representation of all the regions
of the world. In that connection, my delegation, while in
favour of the admission of Germany and Japan as
permanent members of the Security Council, is of the
opinion that Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, as
well as Asia, should also be represented as permanent
members of the Security Council.
The new permanent members should have the same
prerogatives as the present permanent members, in
particular as regards the right of the veto, which, if not
done away with entirely, should be restricted to the
conditions set forth in Chapter VII of the Charter.
Turning to the reforms proposed by the Secretary-
General, I want to express my delegation’s sincere
congratulations on the work accomplished. These reforms
are the broadest and most profound that we have ever
seen. My delegation therefore supports them
enthusiastically.
It is our expectation that this reform process will
lead to the promotion of the economic and social
development of less developed Member States, the
strengthening of multilateralism and an increase in the
United Nations effectiveness and credibility.T o
accomplish that, we must see to it that the reform
exercise is not confined to an obsessive desire purely and
simply to reduce costs.
The measures aimed at increasing the Secretary-
General’s guidance and management capacity seem to us
amply justified. In fact, the presence of a Deputy
Secretary-General, a Senior Management Group and a
Strategic Planning Unit will provide the Secretary-General
with an internal support mechanism that will considerably
strengthen his authority and his overall control system-
wide.
25

The new configuration of the Secretariat organizational
chart is attractive in its concision and coherence, but above
all in its objective of effectiveness. Nonetheless, the
comprehensive measures aimed at regrouping 12 entities
and administrative units into five services should not result
in either a decline in the programme level of operational
activities for development or in a decrease in the quality of
technical cooperation services due to a reduction of staff.
In the same context, the establishment of a
Development Group composed mainly of the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations
Population Fund (UNFPA) should not affect the dynamic
nature of their activities in the field.
Lastly, the proposals of the Secretary-General to
refocus the work of the General Assembly on high-priority
questions and to reduce the duration of its sessions reflect
a concern for rationalization that we fully support.
We agree with the Secretary-General’s statement that
reform is a continuous process and not a one-time event. In
fact, this reform is the result of an entire series of
reflections that began in the 1970s within and outside the
United Nations system to adapt it to the changes that have
taken place since 1945. I have in mind the report of the
Ford Foundation, the Bertrand report, the work of the
Carlsson group and the work of many universities in the
United States and in Europe, whose research clarified many
aspects of our debates, especially during the work of the
working groups on the different aspects of reform.
Nonetheless, any reform is above all part of a certain
logic aimed at achieving an objective. But its success in the
final analysis will depend on the quality of the individuals
who are going to implement it, and above all on the
political will of the States that will be called upon to work
together to respect the spirit of compromise that made it
possible to arrive at the package.
For its part, Côte d’Ivoire is prepared to participate
actively with other delegations when the time comes in the
constructive consideration of the Secretary-General’s
proposals for reform. Their consequences involve all of us.


First of all, Sir, allow
me to congratulate you on your election as President of
the fifty-second session of the General Assembly of the
United Nations and to wish you success in the execution
of that responsible and lofty function. I am especially
pleased that the General Assembly has elected to this very
responsible function a very competent representative from
Ukraine, a friendly country with which the Republic of
Macedonia is developing successful cooperation.
The Republic of Macedonia attaches great
importance to the fifty-second session of the General
Assembly. On the threshold of the twenty-first century,
the interdependence of peace and global development is
a standard that must be respected. It is dangerous for
some to develop while others continuously regress. This
trend can only be a source of conflicts, of confrontation
of interests, even of wars. Consequently, there is no
alternative to the strengthening of peace through the
promotion of international cooperation, and our
Organization faces the serious responsibility of being even
more efficient and more focused on essential issues. This
is the direction that the Macedonian delegation will also
pursue.
I applaud the fact that the Organization is headed by
Mr. Kofi Annan, a very competent reformer who believes
in the irreplaceable role of the United Nations as a
guarantor of international peace and security. His
programme for United Nations reform, as contained in his
report of July of this year, is one of the most topical
issues before the Organization. We believe that the
essential changes that have been proposed take into
account the basic consideration that the United Nations
4

remain a democratic institution representing the interests of
all Members. We too, much like the Secretary-General,
wish the Organization to be a promoter of new changes, a
true centre where countries can harmonize their activities in
building a better world. Whether the United Nations will
truly become such an organization will depend on all of us,
and the Republic of Macedonia will continue to make its
contribution to that end. In that context, the emerging
priorities are as follows: a stronger General Assembly,
reform of United Nations organs, and above all of the
Security Council, a reduction in the number of ad hoc
bodies, greater transparency of operations, and maximum
control over the budget of the Organization, financial
spending and contributions.
Allow me to address some of the priority tasks that
the United Nations will have to face in the coming period,
tasks which should not be placed in the background because
of the reform of the United Nations. Indeed, that reform
must be in the service of a more efficient resolution of the
bitter issues that burden the international community. The
credibility of the United Nations will to a large measure
depend on this, for in the coming period much energy will
have to be devoted to ending existing crises and conflicts
and to preventing the eruption of new ones.
The United Nations has become renowned for its
successful peacekeeping operations. I should like to use this
opportunity to express my highest appraisal of the presence
of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force
(UNPREDEP) in the Republic of Macedonia, as well as my
appreciation to all the participants in that operation, which
has helped prevent a spillover of the conflict from some
parts of the former Yugoslavia to my country.
With regard to the crisis in Albania, my country has
constantly felt the need for the effective presence of the
United Nations peacekeeping forces. The cooperation
between the Macedonian Government and UNPREDEP, one
of the most successful preventive operations in the history
of the United Nations, is truly excellent. My pleasure is
increased by the reports of the Secretary-General that
contain the same assessments. The mission of UNPREDEP
is ongoing. We believe that it should continue, for the
presence of peacekeepers in the Republic of Macedonia
serves not only as a dam preventing the existing crisis
points in the Balkans from overflowing, but also as an actor
working for peace, security and stability in the country’s
southern regions.
In that context, the Republic of Macedonia has
welcomed and follows closely the implementation of the
Dayton Accord. It is a matter of principle that the
indicted war criminals be brought to justice. The
international community, epitomized in the United
Nations, must not allow the Dayton Accord to fail. Hence,
it is imperative to give impetus to further engagement by
the Organization, in coordination with the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union, in
sustaining the peace process. A particularly important part
of that effort, I would emphasize, is the normalization of
relations between the Balkan countries, on the basis of
good-neighbourliness and mutual respect. Within its
capacities, the Republic of Macedonia has made and will
continue to make the maximum contribution to that effect.
The agenda of this session of the Assembly also
includes the development of good-neighbourly relations
between Balkan countries, in accordance with resolution
50/80, adopted following our proposal at the fiftieth
session of the General Assembly, and the election of new
members of the Security Council for the term from 1998
to 1999. Allow me to address these issues briefly.
Throughout the twentieth century, the Balkans has
remained a concern for the international community due
to the many wars waged in this region. The Republic of
Macedonia has unequivocally opted for peace there. In
this context, we are engaged in an active policy of good-
neighbourliness and mutual cooperation with all Balkan
countries. This can also be seen through resolutions 48/84
and 50/80 B proposed by the Republic of Macedonia and
sponsored by many Balkan countries — but not just
Balkan countries — and adopted with the vast support
and consensus of the General Assembly. The Republic of
Macedonia is committed to respecting the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of the Balkan States and the
inviolability of international frontiers, and to advancing
mutual cooperation in all spheres. We are particularly
committed to the institutionalized and functional
integration of the Balkans in the European integration
processes. During this session, our delegation will submit
a draft resolution for the development of good-
neighbourly relations in the Balkans. I hope that the
General Assembly will adopt it by consensus.
As long ago as 1994, my country, the Republic of
Macedonia, submitted its candidacy as a non-permanent
member of the Security Council from the Eastern
European group of countries, for the term from 1998 to
1999. I also announced our candidacy during my address
to the Assembly last year. I am pleased that many United
Nations Members have expressed great understanding of
our motives and arguments, and have supported the need
5

for one Balkan country to be elected as a member of the
Security Council. We very much appreciate the support for
and confidence in our candidacy that we expect to receive
from the Assembly. We would like to make our own
contribution to the activities of the Security Council and the
United Nations as a whole by incorporating our own policy
of peace and democracy into those activities on the issues
which fall within those organs' areas of responsibility. I
would like to assure the Assembly that our delegation on
the Security Council will act in full accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations. In the period that lies ahead,
United Nations bodies will continue to deal with Balkan
problems and the general Balkan situation. This is reality.
For these reasons, it is quite logical that the Republic of
Macedonia, as a Balkan country, be elected to this function.
It will be a great honour for us to shoulder this
responsibility, and, at the same time, a great obligation for
which we have long been preparing.
The processes of democratic transformation in many
countries in the world will undoubtedly continue at the
same pace in the twenty-first century. This trend will
inevitably influence the character of overall and
comprehensive international relations in global proportions.
The United Nations and other organs within its system must
inevitably take part in these changes. Only if the rules of
international law are abided by and the real situation on the
ground is respected can a better and more humane world be
created and thus our trust in our Organization increased. I
am confident that the reforms that have been announced, or
rather their consistent implementation, will lead to an even
greater affirmation of the United Nations and its
commitment to combating policies of force and domination
and to supporting peace, cooperation and the balanced
development of all countries and peoples. In a word, we are
confident that in this way the United Nations will be even
more efficient in responding to the objectives and ideals of
the Charter of the United Nations.


I congratulate you,
Sir, on assuming the presidency of the fifty-second
session of the General Assembly and pledge to you our
full support and cooperation. I also pay tribute to your
predecessor, Ambassador Razali Ismail, whose devoted
efforts enabled the fifty-first session of the General
Assembly to come to grips with some of the core issues
affecting the future of the United Nations.
We meet at a time when a number of profound
questions loom large over humankind. Does the
international community possess the necessary will and
5

means to make the twenty-first century an era of wider
peace, deeper justice and greater prosperity? Can we
eradicate poverty and protect the environment? Are we able
to ensure that fundamental human rights are respected and
promoted throughout the world? Can we reinvigorate the
United Nations so that it can be the means to advance these
ends? To each of these questions we can and must respond
in the affirmative.
The Secretary-General, through his recent reform
proposals, has provided the international community with
a timely compass to help guide the way. In the view of my
delegation, the Secretary- General's latest proposals contain
a wide spectrum of reforms designed for the overall
enhancement of the United Nations system. We are
confident that many of the Secretary-General's ideas can be
translated into action through open-minded deliberation,
with the full participation of Member States at this session.
In this respect, I wish to recall the statement of 10 August
by the Group of 16, including the Republic of Korea, which
expressed support for the Secretary-General's reform
initiatives.
While institutional reform is a prerequisite for a more
efficient United Nations, it is clear that without more
reliable financial support the Organization cannot make an
efficient transition into the twenty-first century. Only when
Member States discharge their financial obligations in full,
on time and without conditions will the United Nations
safely and smoothly reach its ultimate destination of
ensuring a better future for humankind.
It is in this spirit that Korea has made it a firm policy
to pay its assessed dues in full and on time. We will
actively participate in concerted efforts to adopt a more
equitable scale of assessment at this session. My
Government will consider a gradual move from the
contributors' Group C to which Korea presently belongs, to
Group B in terms of peacekeeping assessment. This is a
reaffirmation of our enduring commitment towards both the
financial viability of the United Nations and its efforts to
maintain international peace and security.
Another crucial task before us is the reform of the
Security Council. At the last session, my delegation actively
participated in deliberations on the issue, on the basis of
our own experiences as a Council member. We share the
view that the profound changes in international relations
over the past several decades fully warrant expansion of
Council membership. Given the diverse and sensitive
concerns of all Member States, however, this issue must be
handled with the utmost prudence and seriousness. Every
effort should be made to work out a consensus formula,
while bearing in mind that haste makes waste.
One of the most significant and promising
developments in international relations over the past half
century has been the emergence of a considerable number
of medium-power countries with the capability to make a
meaningful contribution to the cause of international
peace and security. Any plan to reform the Council
should provide those countries with opportunities to serve
on the Council with reasonable frequency, commensurate
with their capabilities and contributions.
We also believe that Council reform should be based
upon consideration of the problems and shortcomings
associated with the Council's operations thus far,
particularly with respect to the system of permanent
membership and the right of veto. Convinced that more
can be done to make the Security Council a more
representative, efficient and democratic body, we will
remain open-minded and flexible with regard to any
proposals that can move this important process in the
right direction.
As a member of the Security Council for the 1996-
1997 period, the Republic of Korea has made its due
contribution to the cause of international peace and
security. We have actively participated in reaching
important decisions to enhance peace and stability in the
countries of some parts of the third world that have been
plagued by civil conflicts over the past several years. We
also organized, during Korea's presidency of the Council
last May, an open debate on the refugee issue. The debate
resulted in the adoption of a presidential statement in June
on protection for humanitarian assistance to refugees and
others in conflict situations. This clearly reflects the fact
that the Security Council has come to recognize that
security applies to people as much as to States in an era
of intra-State conflicts.
Despite many positive developments in the security
landscape of the post Cold-War era, the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority concern
to people and Governments alike. My Government
believes that universal adherence to the existing non-
proliferation regimes represents an essential step towards
realizing that common objective. In this regard, we
welcome the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons
Convention, and urge those States which have not yet
acceded to the Convention, including North Korea, to do
so at the earliest date.
6

The proliferation and indiscriminate use of anti-
personnel landmines has been the cause of enormous
human suffering and injury, particularly among civilians.
Given the magnitude of the scourge of anti-personnel
landmines, the Republic of Korea has decided to extend for
an indefinite period its moratorium on the export of anti-
personnel landmines, which was to expire at the end of this
year. We believe, however, that each country's legitimate
security concerns should be given due consideration in
addressing this matter.
I wish to reiterate that, while we fully support the
noble crusade to protect innocent civilians from anti-
personnel landmines, a sweeping ban cannot be a
satisfactory answer for a country like the Republic of
Korea, which faces the real and present risk of a recurrence
of all-out war, and whose heavily populated capital is only
25 miles from the military demarcation line. In our view,
the draft convention adopted in Oslo two weeks ago does
not fully accommodate concerns which we have
consistently expressed, or the exceptional nature of the
security situation on the Korean peninsula.
The international community has consistently
endeavoured to wipe out all forms of terrorism from the
face of the earth. However, terrorism still persists as one of
the major threats to international peace, exacting a heavy
toll on innocent lives. The Republic of Korea has
experienced many barbaric and cowardly acts of terrorism
and still lives under its constant threat, including recent
open threats aimed at our free press. We strongly support
international efforts to combat terrorism and underline the
importance of upholding the principle of zero tolerance.
Given the global spectrum of terrorism, we also believe that
the United Nations can play a central role in strengthening
the international anti-terrorism regime. In this regard, we
look forward to an early adoption of the convention for the
suppression of terrorist bombings.
In this era of interdependence among States, the
international community cannot remain indifferent to the
under-development of much of the world. My delegation
therefore welcomes the adoption of the Agenda for
Development at the previous session of the General
Assembly and the Secretary-General's reform proposals
designed to enhance the United Nations economic and
social initiatives as well as its development activities. For
that reason, we support the Secretary-General's suggestion
to enhance the coordinating role of the Economic and
Social Council and to strengthen cooperation between the
United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions. We
expect that the various proposals for a funding modality for
United Nations development activities will be discussed
fully at this session.
Korea, now a member of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, will participate
more vigorously in South-South cooperation projects with
a view to playing a bridging role between developed and
developing countries. In an effort to expand assistance to
the least developed countries, we have participated in
bilateral cooperation projects with the Economic
Commission for Africa since 1995, and we plan to
undertake a programme for the development of Africa for
the period 1998 to 2000.
My Government, jointly with the United Nations
Development Programme, established in Seoul this past
May the International Vaccine Institute. This Institute is
devoted to the research and development of vaccines for
children around the world, particularly those in
developing countries. The inaugural meeting of its board
of trustees is scheduled to convene in Seoul next month.
We look forward to generous support from Member
States for this worthy goal of keeping our children free
from debilitating diseases.
Turning now to environmental issues, my
Government welcomes the adoption of the Programme for
Further Implementation of Agenda 21 at the nineteenth
special session of the General Assembly and stands
committed to participating faithfully in its implementation.
In particular, we are pleased that Korea's proposal to
conduct a feasibility study on the transfer of publicly
owned technology was supported by developed and
developing countries alike and was included in the
Programme. The results of the feasibility study, which is
being funded by my Government, will be presented at the
sixth session of the Commission on Sustainable
Development next April. Through these efforts, we hope
to expedite the transfer of environmentally sound
technologies and to promote international cooperation for
environmental protection.
During the special session, there was also an in-
depth discussion on the safe management of radioactive
waste, an issue of serious concern to many countries. My
Government attaches great importance to the fact that the
special session adopted a comprehensive set of
arrangements on the environmentally sound management
of these dangerous wastes. We strongly urge that these
arrangements be firmly and strictly adhered to and
respected.
7

With regard to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, we hope that a realistic and
achievable outcome will emerge at the Kyoto Conference
to be held in December this year.
Next year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the
adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. In 1998, we are also to undertake the five-
year mid-term review of the implementation of the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action adopted in June
1993.
In the view of my delegation, human rights is an area
where the United Nations has made significant contributions
over the past half century, not just as an international forum
for discussion, but also as a centre for coordinated action.
Seen from this perspective, the consolidation of the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the
Centre for Human Rights, as proposed in the Secretary-
General's report, should certainly inject new vitality into
United Nations efforts to enhance the coordination of its
activities in the area of human rights. I wholeheartedly
welcome Mary Robinson's assumption of the post of High
Commissioner.
My Government also welcomes the remarkable
progress made by the Preparatory Committee on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court, which we
believe will serve as an effective deterrent against violations
of international humanitarian law. We expect that the
forthcoming conference in Rome will adopt the statute of
the court, paving the way for its establishment at the
earliest possible date. From a historical perspective, the
creation of a permanent international criminal court will set
a benchmark for the attainment of international criminal
justice in the coming century.
As rightly pointed out in the Secretary-General's
report, the developments in the present decade have clearly
strengthened the argument that respect for human rights is
a precondition for political stability and socio-economic
progress. One of the United Nations' most compelling
responsibilities is to further promote universal respect for
human rights and deter gross human rights abuses and
political oppression. In this context, we are gravely
concerned at the dire human rights situation in North
Korea. We truly hope that, in the not-too-distant future, our
compatriots in the North will come to enjoy basic human
rights and freedoms, as other peoples do around the world.
Let me now turn to the situation on the Korean
Peninsula. In April last year, the Republic of Korea and the
United States jointly proposed four-party talks, involving
the South and the North of Korea, the United States and
China, which aim to establish a permanent peace
mechanism on the Korean Peninsula and build mutual
trust between the two sides of Korea. The four-party
talks, when realized, will offer rare chances of facilitating
peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and
throughout North-east Asia.
If inter-Korean relations are to move forward and the
outstanding problems of the Peninsula are to be resolved
peacefully, there is no alternative to dialogue and
reconciliation between the South and the North of Korea.
We sincerely hope that North Korea will realize the
importance and value of improved inter-Korean relations
through its participation in the four-party talks. While the
talks are in the interest of all concerned, no one stands to
benefit more than North Korea itself. The construction of
a solid and durable peace structure on the Korean
Peninsula will also produce generous dividends which can
help North Korea in addressing a host of domestic
challenges it faces, including its economic difficulties.
It is regrettable that the recent preparatory meetings
for the four-party talks ended without any tangible result.
Nevertheless, we will continue our patient effort to
engage North Korea in a process of dialogue. We
appreciate the continued support of the international
community to this end.
In the meantime, the Republic of Korea will
continue to provide humanitarian assistance to North
Korea. The plight of innocent civilians in the North and,
in particular, vulnerable groups such as malnourished
children, is a matter of serious concern for the
Government and people of the Republic of Korea. As a
matter of priority, my Government will provide assistance
to the vulnerable children in North Korea in close
cooperation with the United Nations Children's Fund and
other interested countries. In this connection, we would
like to stress the vital importance of transparency in the
distribution process. We hope that such transparency can
be enhanced through more effective monitoring by the
international organizations concerned.
This year has seen some positive developments in
international efforts to resolve the long-standing North
Korean nuclear issue. The 1994 Geneva Agreed
Framework has now entered the implementation stage,
with the ground-breaking ceremony for the light-water
reactor project in North Korea last month under the
auspices of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
8

Organization (KEDO). For the first time in nearly five
decades, over 100 engineers and technicians of both sides
of Korea are working together on the construction site. We
hope that this welcome development will be a harbinger of
a new era in inter-Korean relations. My Government takes
this opportunity to express its appreciation to all those
countries which have extended generous financial
contributions to KEDO.
While the ongoing light-water reactor project
undertaken by KEDO is an important step forward in
eliminating the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Korean
peninsula, it must be emphasized here once again that the
ultimate resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue is
possible only when North Korea complies fully with its
safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, as well as with the Joint Declaration on the
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula signed by the
South and North Korea in 1991.
When the United Nations was founded in 1945, who
could have foreseen the extent to which international
relations would develop during the next half-century? No
doubt, a number of geopolitical structural changes will
occur in the coming century as well.
At the threshold of the twenty-first century, this
session of the General Assembly could well prove to be a
turning point by providing a forum for reconfiguring the
architecture and priorities of the Organization. Facing a new
array of challenges, this session should point the way
towards a brighter future and a renewed sense of optimism.
Together, we can forge a stronger United Nations and,
through it, the foundation for a century of peace, prosperity
and justice. The Republic of Korea stands ready to do its
due part.


Let me congratulate
you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the fifty-
second session of the General Assembly. I also thank our
outgoing President, Mr. Razali Ismail, for his untiring
efforts. He catalysed a change in our approach to Security
Council reform and set a new trajectory for it.
For several years, we have all recognized the
imperative of United Nations reform. Today, the issue of
the moment is still reform. This summer, the Secretary-
General challenged us with a package of reforms that he
accurately described as the most extensive and far-
reaching in the 52-year history of this Organization. This
is, of course, not the first time a Secretary-General has
attempted to remake this Organization. But now that the
more extravagant of post-cold-war hopes for the United
Nations have faded, I believe that this package represents
a more focused, realistic and practical approach. We
congratulate the Secretary-General for his initiative.
The Secretary-General's objective clearly is to enable
the United Nations to do better what we all require it to
do. We all take the United Nations importance as
axiomatic. Therefore, his intention to reconfigure the
United Nations management and strengthen the United
Nations ability to perform its core functions should be
generally acceptable to the majority, even if every
particular element of his proposals has not been fully
elaborated or may not be entirely to everyone's taste.
In the larger interests of this Organization, we should
all welcome the thrust of the Secretary-General's
proposals and not take issue with too many details.
Singapore adopts such an approach. We have, for
example, questions about some specific details of his
proposals to place the United Nations finances on a
sounder footing and to streamline its operations. But we
have nonetheless contributed actively to the effort to
streamline budgetary and administrative procedures in the
Secretariat and will continue to do so.
By taking a pragmatic and eclectic approach, we
hope to help move the reform process forward, even if we
may have questions on specific aspects. We will continue
to work with the Secretary-General and other Member
States to make the United Nations a more efficient and
effective Organization — one that will serve the interests
of all its Members, big and small, developing as well as
industrialized.
The Secretary-General's proposals on the United
Nations management, administration and structure have
sometimes been directly or indirectly linked to the
ongoing effort by Member States to prepare the United
Nations political leadership for the twenty-first century
through Security Council reform. We are not confident
that this is the correct approach. We have been engaged
in this broader effort for almost four years. It is a fact
that the process has been difficult. Progress has been
slow. We have reached the conclusion that the prospects
for further progress are not good.
9

We have arrived at this conclusion with great
reluctance and without rancour. Progress has not been slow
because of the ill will of one State or another. Prospects for
further progress are dim not merely because one country or
another has lacked the will to cut through the web of vested
interests. The reasons are more fundamental. They go
beyond the volitions and intentions of individual countries
and are embedded in the nature and inescapable realities of
international organization in an international system that is
still largely defined by relations between sovereign States.
No great Power, or even a Power with aspirations to
greatness, has ever been willing to submit its own vital
interests to United Nations jurisdiction. This fact of
international life underlies the current reform stalemate. The
necessity of United Nations reform may be widely
accepted. But what the great Powers want is not a strong
United Nations per se. They want a United Nations just
strong and credible enough to serve as an effective
instrument of their will and policies. It is only small
countries that are more inclined to take the United Nations
on its own terms and in its own right. Small countries are
not necessarily more virtuous — we merely have fewer
options.
This reality has been underscored by our discussions
on Security Council reform. The really crucial decisions
that will allow Security Council reform to move decisively
forward or stall it indefinitely are going to be taken in
Washington, London, Paris, Beijing or Moscow. It has not
been clear that the current permanent members really want
change except on their own terms and in circumstances that
will not erode their current status and prerogatives. Critical
ambiguities in their positions have held up progress and
will continue to do so unless clarified.
One school of thought is that we should decide on
Security Council reform during this General Assembly. I
can well sympathize with the frustrations of those who feel
that the current debate is going nowhere. But precisely
because this is so, we need to ask: What is it that we are
going to decide upon? The answer is far from clear. Indeed,
the entire Security Council reform process is in danger of
being lost in a wilderness of logical contradictions and
ambiguities. Please permit me to spell out some of these
contradictions and ambiguities.
Several permanent members have been categoric only
in their desire to see Japan and Germany as new permanent
members. Many other countries, including my own, would
agree that, when general agreement is reached on the
expansion of the Security Council, Japan and Germany
should be new permanent members. But an equally large
number of countries, and I believe Japan and Germany
are among them, would also agree that any general
agreement on expansion must include some developing
countries as new permanent members to reflect new
international realities.
On this point most permanent members have been
far less clear. When challenged, several of them have
recently for the first time conceded that in addition to
Japan and Germany they would in principle be willing to
accept three permanent seats for developing nations from
the regions of Africa, Asia and Latin America. This is
welcome progress. Nevertheless, important ambiguities
still remain.
How will the three developing countries be chosen?
It has been suggested that individual countries be chosen
by a two-thirds vote of the membership as a whole. It has
also been suggested that they could be subject to some
system of rotation within the regions.
Both, however, are problematic concepts. Can a
country really legitimately represent a region if it is
chosen outside the region? Will the two-thirds
membership prescribed by the Charter really be
sufficiently familiar with conditions outside their own
respective regions to make an informed and legitimate
choice, binding on regions of which they are not
members? Then, conceptually, is it not inherently
contradictory for a member to be said to be permanent
but nonetheless be subject to rotation? Who will such a
member represent: its own national interests or the
region's interests? Can it really represent the latter?
Indeed, what is the regional interest? How will it be
determined? Is the regional interest necessarily
synonymous with the interests of the larger members of
a region? Can a rotational system work for any region
except Africa, where it is already an established
principle?
None of these questions will be easy to answer.
They have been debated for the last three years without
satisfactory answers. But unless there are clear answers,
my concern is that suggestions for a differentiated
selection process for permanent members from among the
newly industrialized and newly developing countries will
only lead to permanent stress, divisions and conflict for
most regions, or it will lead to a two-stage decision-
making process where the elevation of Germany and
Japan will not for many years, if ever, be matched by any
degree of consensus for the developing nations of Asia,
10

Africa and Latin America. Such a discriminatory situation
would be clearly unacceptable to a majority of Member
States, including many of those that aspire to permanent
status.
But even if we could simultaneously reach agreement
on the identity of the three permanent members from
among the developing countries, together with Japan and
Germany, there are further complexities of equal
importance. What will be the status of the new permanent
members?
Even those current permanent members that have
strongly supported Germany's and Japan's aspirations have
been silent on whether Germany and Japan should have the
veto. Even treaty allies of Japan and Germany, countries
that have pledged to go to war at their side and for them,
have taken no position on this crucial question. This, in our
view, makes it even more difficult to believe that any
developed country permanent member would ever allow
any developing country to acquire the veto, even though
they have made it clear that they want to retain unrestricted
use of the veto for themselves.
The powers of new permanent members are not
questions that can be deferred to a later date merely to
make it easier to quickly determine the identity of the new
permanent members. They are intrinsic to the very notion
and definition of permanent membership. Is a new
permanent member really a permanent member if it does
not have the same powers as the original five permanent
members?
Article 27 has been controversial from the very
founding of the United Nations. There is now a wide
consensus that the use of the veto should be curtailed with
a view to its eventual abolition. The reality, of course, is
that this is not going to happen any time soon. Any attempt
to curtail the veto will be vetoed. Undemocratic though it
may be, the veto will be with us for the foreseeable future.
And it is not without a certain utility in so far as it helps
prevent conflicts among the major Powers which could
undermine the United Nations. It has been argued that the
veto acts as a fail-safe mechanism. The veto will prevent
those countries that are so essential to the maintenance of
peace and security and to the operation of the United
Nations that they deserve permanent status from being
compelled to take any action that would lead to conflicts
among themselves.
Now, if this justification for the retention of the veto
by the original five permanent members has any validity,
then the question that arises is whether any new
permanent member that is not given the veto is really
deserving of that status? Would such countries really
enjoy the international stature and the capability and clout
to make such a crucial contribution to international peace
and security as to warrant being given permanent status?
And if not, why give them permanent status? Could they
not make financial and other contributions to the United
Nations in some other, way as many countries with no
such aspirations already do? If there is a need for new
permanent members, and I believe there is a need, then
the veto is not a question that can be postponed or
discussed separately from the issue of their identities.
Three out of the five current permanent members
have also been adamantly opposed to the expansion of the
Security Council beyond a total of 20 or 21 members.
This effectively blocks any expansion of the Security
Council.
Let us suppose that agreement is reached on the
identity of the five new permanent members: Japan and
Germany and three from the developing countries,
whichever they may be. But if the current permanent
members that argue against an expansion of the Security
Council beyond 21 members remain firm in their position,
this would mean only one additional non-permanent seat
for the 165 remaining members of the United Nations, all
of which have a desire and a right to serve the United
Nations on the Security Council at least occasionally. This
inequitable arrangement would certainly be rejected by
the majority. Moreover, creating five new permanent
members in a Security Council of 21 will seriously upset
the present balance between permanent seats and non-
permanent seats. This is also a situation which will not be
acceptable to the majority of the Member States. It will
certainly not command the support of the two thirds of
the membership required by the Charter to effect any
change to the Security Council's present composition.
Those that have argued for an expansion of the
Security Council to no more than 21 members have done
so on the grounds that this is the maximum number that
can function effectively and efficiently. These are
concerns that we should all share. Nobody wants an
ineffective or inefficient Security Council. But no one has
yet made a convincing argument that a Security Council
of, say, 26 members, as has been proposed by the Non-
Aligned Movement, would be any less efficient or
effective than a Security Council of 21. This is of course
assuming that effectiveness and efficiency are not
narrowly defined as merely making it more difficult for
11

any of the current permanent members and their allies to
ensure that nobody can prevent them from having their own
way.
In any case, can we really decide on the effectiveness
and efficiency of an expanded Security Council before we
know what the powers of the new permanent members are
going to be? This leads us into a tautological situation. We
cannot know how an expanded Security Council consisting
of an expanded number of permanent members will operate
because, as I argued a moment ago, the definition of what
constitutes a new permanent member cannot be separated
from the question of the veto. And the current permanent
members have refused to pronounce on this. At this point,
effectiveness and efficiency as an argument against a
Security Council of more than 21 breaks down completely.
I could go on with my analysis. But I hope I have
demonstrated that several critical aspects of the positions of
the major countries on Security Council reform need further
clarification before progress can be made. I do not believe
that the ambiguities and contradictions are going to be
resolved soon. They are the natural consequence of
sovereign States pursuing their national interests.
The position of permanent members will have a
decisive influence on whether or not Security Council
reform moves forward. As things presently stand, it seems
clear that what will not evoke a veto from any of the
current permanent members will not command the support
of the two-thirds membership required to make the
necessary Charter changes. At the same time, what would
attract the support of the vast majority of United Nations
Members is more likely than not to provoke a veto. This is
where, like it or not, we currently stand.
A similar case could be made on the closely related
question of financial reform. This too, has its own deep
complexities; its own intrinsic contradictions between what
would be acceptable to the majority and what the major
Powers want. Not every change is necessarily for the better.
We should therefore make progress cautiously, especially
on such fundamental questions. This is why the Non-
Aligned Movement has wisely decided that efforts at
restructuring the Security Council should not be subject to
any imposed time-frame.
Of course, there has been an evolution in the positions
of the major Powers over the last four years. There will be
further positive changes over time. But it will certainly take
time. No country readily changes the status quo if it
benefits from the status quo.
My point is therefore that, given this reality, it
would be a historic mistake to artificially link the
Secretary-General's managerial, administrative and
structural reforms to far more contentious questions of
Security Council or other matters that would require the
support of the two-thirds membership needed to effect
Charter amendments as defined in Article 108. There is
no need to handicap ourselves in this way. Not all aspects
of the Secretary-General's proposals are equally
acceptable to all Members. But, taken as a whole, it will
be far easier to reach a general agreement on more
aspects of the Secretary-General's proposals if they are
considered in themselves and not linked to more
politicized and therefore more intractable questions.
This is not to say that Security Council or financial
reforms are unimportant. Of course, they are important.
We should continue to work on them. The issues I have
raised are complex. But there is no avoiding them. I
remain confident that with patience and sincerity we will
eventually find our way out of the thickets of ambiguity
into which we have wandered. I am confident that we will
eventually succeed in our common endeavour to enhance
the ability of the Security Council to exercise leadership
in the management of global affairs and enhance its
legitimacy to do so.
But this is only one facet of United Nations reform.
The Security Council is not necessarily the only United
Nations body that is important, nor even always the most
important. The Security Council is empowered to act on
behalf of the membership as a whole on questions of
international peace and security. It has no direct mandate
to act on behalf of the membership as a whole on many
other urgent international questions. International peace
and security are no longer the only definition of high
international politics. Development and the environment
are two areas that are obvious and of increasing
importance. Such issues in which the Security Council is
not the lead United Nations body have risen in
prominence on the post-cold-war international agenda.
They will remain high priorities for the majority. There
can be no legitimate leadership role for the United
Nations that does not deal with such issues.
Herein lies the critical importance of the Secretary-
General's proposals. They can make an immediate and
tangible difference to issues affecting the entire
international community which are beyond the scope of
the Security Council. Action on the Secretary-General's
proposals, therefore, should not have to await general
agreement on Security Council reform. By focusing on
12

his proposals, by subjecting them to a thorough and positive
discussion, I believe we can move urgently needed United
Nations reforms forward at a faster pace than has hitherto
characterized the reform process. And we can still remain
seized of, but not hostage to, issues that may take more
time to command general agreement or that require Charter
amendment.