Let me begin by
congratulating Mr. Freitas do Amaral of Portugal on his
election to the presidency of this fiftieth session of the
General Assembly. I am confident that under his wise
leadership we shall come to a successful conclusion of this
historic session.
My Spanish colleague, Minister Javier Solana, has
already spoken on behalf of the European Union. I fully
associate Finland with his statement.
Fifty years ago the founders of the United Nations
established the maintenance of international peace and
security as the primary purpose of their new Organization.
They also undertook to take effective collective measures
to that end. Fifty years later the condition of the world is
dramatically different, but the United Nations is as
indispensable now as it was then. Its role under Chapter VII
of the Charter continues to be a vital bulwark of world
security, but its mission of peace now ranges much wider:
the United Nations focuses on prevention of conflicts, it
sustains development, it seeks to ensure the human rights
and dignity of every individual.
The world needs a strong United Nations. Certainly
the small, the weak and the underprivileged among us need
the United Nations the most. But the United Nations, in
turn, needs the full support of all its Member States.
It is intolerable that while all of us here will once
again reaffirm our faith in the United Nations, the
Organization is once more experiencing extreme financial
difficulties. In this context I should like to draw the
attention of the Assembly to a statement adopted
yesterday by the Foreign Ministers of the Nordic
countries — Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and
Finland — on the financial situation of the United
Nations. The text of this statement will be made available
later.
We all agree that the United Nations needs to
streamline its work, set clear priorities and cut out
activities that have become obsolete. Yet the main reason
for the difficulties is that the majority of the Member
States, permanent members of the Security Council
among them, do not pay their assessed contributions on
time, in full or without conditions.
As a consequence, those who pay on time, in full
and without conditions — such as Finland — are in fact
penalized for their behaviour. It is high time for all
Member States to acknowledge that to pay one’s dues is
not an option, but an obligation, and that this obligation
must be fulfilled, and fulfilled punctually. When payments
are not made on time, it is normal to charge interest. This
should be done also in the United Nations.
It is also clear that the present scale of assessments
needs to be revised rapidly to take into account the real
capacity to pay of each Member State. Finland is
prepared to support adjustments in cases where the pains
of transition, natural disasters or other circumstances truly
beyond the control of the Government concerned justify
such exceptional treatment. On the other hand, upward
adjustments should be the rule when economic
development justifies them.
A strong United Nations needs an effective Security
Council, capable of acting on behalf of the entire
membership. Finland is pleased that the Security Council
has assumed its role under the Charter after the paralysis
of the cold-war years. We also welcome the steps the
Council has taken to improve its working methods and
the transparency of its deliberations.
To remain effective in the long run, the Security
Council must be representative. There can be no
effectiveness without legitimacy. Legitimacy grows from
a true reflection of the increase in United Nations
membership as well as from a frank recognition of
changing realities. Finland therefore supports an increase
in Council membership by five to eight new members.
16

The groundwork for the reform of the Council has
been laid after two years of intensive debate in the Working
Group of the General Assembly. Now it is time to move
from discussion to true negotiation between Member States.
A strong United Nations does not mean that our
Organization should do what we, as Member States, should
in the first instance do ourselves. Under the Charter,
Member States themselves have an obligation to seek
peaceful solutions to disputes and to make every effort to
prevent conflicts in advance. The United Nations assists,
but cannot replace, the Member States, nor should it be
expected to do so.
The permanence of, and unfailing respect for,
universal norms is the basis of human security, whether in
relations between nations or within the nations themselves.
The historic decision by the parties to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty to make that Treaty permanent
meant that a cornerstone of international security was kept
in place and that the prospect of the eventual elimination of
nuclear weapons became more attainable. The next step
should be the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear-test-
ban treaty by the summer of 1996. The negotiations in
Geneva are proceeding well. Under these circumstances,
any testing is therefore a cause for concern. Finland has
expressed its disapproval of the recent tests by France and
China.

The breakthrough achieved in the Middle East peace
process two years ago will be followed by a new important
agreement, to be signed this week. I should like to
congratulate the negotiators on their courage and
persistence. The international community should continue
to support the reconstruction that peace has made possible.
Finland is encouraged by the recent turn towards a
peaceful solution in the former Yugoslavia. The
international community has shown resolve in defending
Sarajevo from persistent and cruel attacks on innocent
civilians. The international community must show equal
resolve once the peace agreement is reached. It must help
to maintain peace on the ground and to reconstruct what
has been shattered by war. But, above all, it is necessary
that all parties to the conflict now finally commit
themselves to peace.
Some of the lessons from the conflicts in former
Yugoslavia and elsewhere are clear. The capacity of the
United Nations and the international community to
coordinate an international response is still inadequate and
not integrated enough, as so many speakers before me
have already mentioned here. The United Nations bears
the main responsibility to prevent, to react rapidly to and
to manage often very complex emergencies. It is the
central actor in peace-keeping operations. We must not
allow the lack of financial resources and organizational
difficulties to stand in the way.
A continuum of ideas based on a broad concept of
security — from respect for the rule of law and human
rights to support for sustainable economic and social
development — is already available in the Secretary-
General’s twin Agendas for Peace and for Development.
It is now for the Member States to put the best of those
ideas into practice. Finland, together with its European
Union partners, will do its share.
True international security begins with the security
of the individual, sometimes in relation to his or her own
Government. Violations of human rights, including
women’s rights, are not justifiable on any grounds. There
are no cultural exceptions to universal human rights.
The importance of mechanisms for the effective
protection of human rights is now widely recognized. This
is manifested, inter alia, in the efforts to establish
systematic and organized judicial inquiry into, and
penalties against, violations of international humanitarian
law and human rights. Finland supports the early
establishment of a permanent international criminal court.
In addition to judicial mechanisms open mainly to
States, the question of the right of individuals to rely on
international human rights instruments is worthy of
serious study and development. The very positive
experiences gained during the 45 years that the European
Court of Human Rights of the Council of Europe has
been functioning illustrate the merits of this approach to
human rights. I can speak to that.
The Beijing Conference and other recent United
Nations Conferences — Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen —
need active and integrated follow-up throughout the
United Nations system. The platforms are there. They
have established beyond doubt that sustainable human
development and human security can be realized only
through the empowerment of individuals and a strong
civic society under law. In the international follow-up of
the Beijing Conference, the roles of the General
Assembly and of the Economic and Social Council are
17

crucial, not only for the efficient implementation of the
Platform for Action, but also for strengthening the
Organization in the social and economic fields. At the same
time, action at the grass-roots level — not new bureaucratic
superstructures — is what is now required.
The follow-up to the Rio Conference offers some
encouragement. Environmental concerns are now part of
mainstream thinking on development. As a major forestry
nation, Finland wants in particular to make sure that
progress on forest issues is made in a solid and balanced
manner and on a global scale.
The past five decades have demonstrated to the world
that the United Nations is a vital centre for harmonizing
actions for the common good. The future will bring new
challenges. Let us provide the United Nations with the
political support and the financial means that it desperately
needs to serve us for the future.


Allow me to begin by
extending my warmest congratulations to the President on
his assumption of his functions at this remarkable session
of the United Nations General Assembly in its fiftieth
year. It is without a doubt a fitting recognition of his rich
personal experience and of his outstanding contribution to
the world community.
I should like to address words of deep appreciation
to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for
his dedicated efforts aimed at creating a more secure,
peaceful and coherent world for future generations but,
above all, for the close attention, constant concern and
personal compassion that he has demonstrated with regard
to the fate of my homeland.
On behalf of the Head of State, Mr. Eduard
Shevardnadze, and the people of the Republic of Georgia,
I should like to express our gratitude to all Member States
for their support of Georgia in one of the most dramatic
moments of its long history. I should like to assure the
international community that despite a very difficult
political landscape, which of late has included savage acts
of political terrorism, the Georgian nation continues to
strive towards its goal of democracy and stability.
I have been fortunate enough to have had the honour
of addressing this unique gathering on previous occasions,
and have always found that, although some of the
problems facing our individual countries and our
community as a whole persist from year to year, the
unique nature of this world body provides an incentive to
look at problems in a more optimistic light and to seek
18

new and innovative solutions. This holds especially true in
this anniversary year.
This Hall has witnessed different times and events,
some of them full of tension and stress, when the world
was teetering on the brink of catastrophe. One can say
without exaggeration that the history of mankind has been
written within these walls for the last 50 years.
Fortunately, the tense cold-war confrontation has
subsided, clearing the way for the forming of mechanisms
of cooperation and partnership. These mechanisms need
time to mature and prove their vitality — but time is a
luxury that few can afford in our day.
This fledgling process is also hampered by a variety
of other factors. Foremost among these factors is the
existence of a number of countries that are, at the same
time, struggling to make ends meet and to reform their
impoverished economies. This creates a very difficult
economic and social situation, which, in turn, leads to
political instability, ethnic or civil conflict and, in the final
analysis, to additional threats to regional peace, making the
problems of individual countries a matter of concern to the
entire world. For Georgia, this most difficult factor is
further complicated by the country’s detachment from the
global opportunities of commerce, technology, investment
and information.
No developing country — and Georgia is undoubtedly
among them — has the means to pull itself out of its
current difficulties by its own bootstraps. And if left to their
own devices, these countries will inevitably follow the same
scenario and become additional “bleeding wounds” on the
body of the world.
The international community is providing significant
assistance to Georgia and to the other new independent
States, for which we are very grateful. I should like to
make special mention of the additional funds allocated
recently for development and of the extensive activities of
the United Nations Development Programme in the
countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
This problem is of a greater magnitude, however, and
its solution, we believe, lies in devising a comprehensive
plan for the economic and social development of a number
of fledgling States, involving vigorous actions on the part
of the international community and a considerable
expansion of the role of the United Nations in promoting
development and in the allocation of additional possibilities
to support the countries transiting to a market economy.
One specific option could be to elaborate general
programmes of development for individual countries.
These programmes would be targeted at the main spheres
of the economy, based on a thorough assessment of
individual needs, assets and possibilities. They would set
the dates, define the sources of financing, and integrate
international assistance and the efforts of national
Governments. The programmes would include the
activities of the United Nations and of national and
international non-governmental organizations in each
specific country. Such a general programme of a
coordinating nature would enable us to clearly identify
priorities, set goals and effectively harness the untapped
reserves of each nation. It would also make much more
effective use of international assistance and goodwill,
which, we all understand, are not infinite.
The creation and implementation of such
programmes would have a very important additional
benefit: by helping to create the basis for a sound,
growing economy, they would simultaneously be
eliminating the breeding ground for internal wars and
conflicts in a manner much more effective than any
peace-keeping operation.
The cruel and merciless flame of war raging on the
territory of the former Yugoslavia is a vivid example of
the discrepancy between the realities of our world today
and the means that international organizations have at
their disposal. Death, unbearable suffering and misery for
tens of thousands of people are the price of this
discrepancy.
While the attention of the entire world is drawn to
extinguishing the fire in the Balkans, the territory of the
former Soviet Union has become the scene of events no
less dramatic and equally threatening to international
security. Many of them bear an uncanny resemblance to
the Balkans in their train of events and in their destructive
potential for regional and international stability.
A timely and just resolution of even one of these
conflicts would provide a brilliant example and a strong
motivation for settling the other ones.
In the past era — and I use this word on purpose,
since we have witnessed a veritable change of eras —
Georgia was often referred to as a laboratory of bold
experiments. Though Georgia hardly has time for
experimenting, this trend continues to this day with an
unprecedented case. I am referring to the joint activities
of United Nations military observers and the
19

Commonwealth of Independent States peace-keeping forces
in the Abkhazia region of Georgia. So far, this novel
approach — or experiment, one could say — has yielded
precious few results. Logically, this would prompt us to
search for new forms and methods, but it should not at all
exclude a more effective use of the existing and tested
possibilities.
The interminable plight of Abkhazia and of the
300,000 displaced persons scattered throughout Georgia
continues to weigh heavily on the entire country and
constitutes another major factor in Georgia’s inability to
engage fully in the process of consolidating, rebuilding and
moving the nation forward.
A fair settlement of the conflict in Abkhazia is made
up of two equally important aspects: the unconditional
return of the displaced persons to their homes and the
definition of the political status of Abkhazia within a
unified Georgia. This is not somebody’s wish, it is not even
solely a matter of principle; this is a fact of life, and one
that will be implemented, sooner or later.
Despite the bitter experience of repeated treachery, the
Georgian Government has never attempted, or threatened to
resort to military force in order to solve this problem. We
have always been committed to the peaceful and negotiated
resolution of the conflict. It is extremely difficult, however,
to carry on peaceful negotiations with a party that resorts to
blatant “ethnic cleansing” and genocide as a means of
consolidating its ill-gotten gains.
Moreover, the Abkhaz side has recently gone so far as
to practically stall the negotiating process by demonstrating
more than their usual intransigence. It is obvious that the
separatist regime is determined to make no compromises,
and prefers to maintain the status quo in the zone of
conflict. Each round of negotiations has proved that the
Abkhazian separatists seek to win time, while pretending
that they are committed to a negotiated settlement of the
conflict.
The separatist leadership is impatiently awaiting
parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. They
attach great importance to the results, assuming that they
will bring about a revision of policy priorities there towards
a more pro-Abkhaz orientation.
Such is the nature of “aggressive separatism”, which
pursues its dark schemes with little regard for law,
international public opinion, or elementary norms of human
decency.
“Aggressive separatism” is a relatively new
phenomenon which emerged on the ruins of the
communist system and is being nurtured by various
political forces. The peculiarity of “Abkhaz separatism”
lies in its seeming usefulness for the larger political aims
of these forces. This fact makes it possible for a minority
of the population of an autonomous republic to drive out
the majority indigenous population of the land by force.
This aspect of “aggressive separatism”, making it a
tool in larger political schemes, has international
ramifications and represents a danger for world security
as a whole.
The special role and possibilities of Russia in
bringing about the resolution of the Abkhazian conflict
are recognized by all, not least by relevant United Nations
documents. Some recent developments encourage us to
hope that Russia may finally decide to use this potential
in order to bring about a comprehensive settlement of this
problem.
The international community has applied much effort
to promoting a peaceful, fair solution to the conflict in
Abkhazia. In the past two years the Security Council
alone has adopted 13 resolutions on Abkhazia. One
hundred and thirty six United Nations military observers
are situated in the conflict zone. The Secretary-General’s
Special Envoy has undertaken numerous trips to the area
and has consulted repeatedly with all the parties.
In December 1994 the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OCSE) adopted a Declaration at
its Budapest summit in which the participating States
expressed their deep concern over “ethnic cleansing”,
“massive deportation of the population” and “numerous
deaths of innocent civilians”, having included these
specific terms in the declaration.
Add to this several declarations and statements
adopted at CIS summits in Almaty and Minsk, which
denounce any form of separatism. Member States of the
CIS assumed the obligation not to support in any form or
manner separatist movements and regimes on the
territories of other countries, and not to establish political,
economic and other relations with them. Neither would
they provide their territory and communications facilities
for use by separatists, nor render them economic,
financial, military or any other kind of assistance.
At the CIS summit in Minsk the mandate of the
peace-keeping forces in Georgia was expanded to include
20

wider rights in order to facilitate the orderly return of
displaced persons and protect vitally important structures.
The mere enumeration of all these measures and
activities would seem to indicate that sufficient political and
legal foundation has been created to finally resolve this
festering crisis. However, the displaced persons are still
waiting to return to their homes, there continue to be no
guarantees of a secure life and normal living conditions,
and the separatist leaders in Abkhazia persist in their aim
of turning Abkhazia into a land uninhabited by Georgians.
Should we regard all the above-mentioned resolutions,
decisions and statements as futile efforts that carry little
beyond moral support? Or consider that the adoption of
Security Council resolutions and their implementation are
two separate and unconnected acts?
I recall an emotional intervention by the Permanent
Representative of the Czech Republic, Ambassador
Kovanda, at one of the Security Council meetings, in which
he suggested that the time had finally come to “call a spade
a spade”. As I have mentioned, this was done in the OSCE
Declaration in Budapest last year, but this has yet to appear
in any United Nations document on the situation in
Georgia.
Also, the process of enforcing the implementation of
the provisions of adopted documents is slack and, with very
few exceptions, brings no results. I realize that I am
touching on some sore points in United Nations activities,
but the lack of movement on the Abkhazian conflict
compels us to present the undisguised truth and begin the
transformation from words to deeds.
In this regard, I should like to present some
suggestions which, we believe, could contribute to the
effectiveness of both the words and of the actions of the
United Nations.
In our view, the resolutions emanating from the United
Nations, as well as from other international organizations,
must clearly assign personal responsibility to individual
persons, organizations or regimes, guilty of disrupting the
process of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. They should
clearly state that these actions will inevitably entail
adequate punitive measures.
First among them should be an introduction of severe
economic and other sanctions according to Articles 41 and
42 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. The
specific form of sanctions intended for the territories under
the control of criminals should also be defined clearly at
the outset, as well as the fact that the population of these
territories will be entitled to receive only humanitarian aid
under strict international control. The case of Abkhazia is
a relevant example. The Georgian Government has
information indicating that weapons and heavy armaments
are being stockpiled in some areas of the territory under
the control of the United Nations Observer Mission and
the CIS peace-keepers. The systematic commuting of
ships between Abkhazian ports and regional States with
the intention of supplying criminal gangs, the free
movement of foreign nationals and the illegal operation of
commercial entities cannot be tolerated either.
Secondly, during its history, the United Nations has
not been energetic enough in taking compulsory measures
against violators of international peace and stability. In a
recent document devoted to the fiftieth anniversary of the
United Nations, the Secretary-General describes such an
approach as desirable in principle and enumerates the
positive and negative aspects of entrusting this task to the
Member States. Much room exists also with regard to the
possibility of achieving the same objective by regional
organizations, especially at a time when the coordination
of action between international organizations has acquired
more and more importance. Cooperation between the
United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia and the CIS
peace-keeping force, as an example, could benefit from
some additional elements.
With regard to this, I would like to point out that the
establishment of a permanent representation of the CIS at
United Nations Headquarters, headed by a dynamic and
experienced diplomat, would be highly beneficial and
desirable.
Thirdly, we consider the establishment and operation
of the international criminal court a priority. The United
Nations would be contributing greatly to promoting
international law and justice and the court could quickly
develop into a potent tool of preventive diplomacy, which
in itself would be a major factor reinforcing international
stability.
More often than not we are reduced to dealing with
the effect, rather than the cause, of events. In other
words, we put much less stock in United Nations
preventive diplomacy than is prudent or practical. In the
case of the Abkhazian conflict, this point, naturally, has
no practical significance any longer, but conclusions can
be drawn from it that would be relevant for the future.
Preventive diplomacy must have real mechanisms and
21

levers which would enable the international community to
impose its will, rather than expose the futility of its
initiatives.
In my intervention at the meeting of the Security
Council on 12 May 1995, I requested an expansion of the
functions of the United Nations observers in order to
accelerate the repatriation of refugees. We felt that it was
important to register and control the breaches of human
rights. This would deter lawbreakers and keep the
international community better informed about the situation
in the region. Since military observers would be
inappropriate for this type of specialized work, we
suggested the establishment of a small team of competent
professionals working alongside the observers to undertake
this mission. The Government of the Republic of Georgia
welcomed the decision to establish such a human rights
monitoring mission in Abkhazia, Republic of Georgia, as
well as its objectives, as presented in the
Secretary-General’s report of 7 August 1995.
I should like to take this opportunity also to convey
our satisfaction with the decision of the Secretary-General
to appoint a deputy to his Special Envoy, who would be
resident in Georgia and would thus provide a continuous
presence at a senior political level.
I have another suggestion of a more administrative
nature. I know that I am expressing the opinion of a
number of newly independent States in requesting that some
mechanism be found to allow the hiring of representatives
of these States by organizations and programmes of the
United Nations system — primarily, the United Nations
Development Programme and the United Nations Children’s
Fund, as well as others. The problem lies in the fact that
most programmes and organizations have instituted a hiring
freeze, which came into effect before the newly
independent States became independent. So, in reality, this
hiring freeze, as necessary and as useful as it may be from
the point of view of internal administration, represents for
our States a roadblock to the normal representation of its
citizens. We would be very grateful if such a mechanism
could be found.
Three years have passed since the Head of State of the
Republic of Georgia, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze, laid out a
set of very sensitive points at the forty-seventh session of
the General Assembly. The creation of a global monitoring
system for the early prevention of potential conflicts; the
establishment of special units of Blue Helmets, after the
example of Interpol teams, in order to control and combat
the flow of conventional weapons; and the establishment of
a rapid reaction force were among the proposals. The
problems that prompted him to make these suggestions
have, unfortunately, grown more acute today and need to
be urgently addressed. We are aware of the many
difficulties in implementing some of these measures, not
least the financial difficulty, but the costs inevitably grow
astronomically when problems are left to fester.
Recently a forum was held in Tbilisi under the
auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, entitled “Solidarity Against
Intolerance, For Dialogue Between Cultures”. It was held
in the framework of the Year for Tolerance declared by
the United Nations. The main aim of the forum was to
find ways out of the situation in which the countries
infected by the virus of intolerance had found themselves.
It is symbolic that Georgia, a country known historically
for its tolerance, hosted the forum. I am sure that
everyone shares the opinion expressed in Tbilisi, that
“we cannot afford to overlook intolerance, since
indifference and complacency equal complicity”.
The contribution of the United Nations to the
process of maintaining international peace and stability is
enormous. And yet numerous open wounds remain in the
world. Conventional wisdom would hold the United
Nations solely responsible for not being able to close
them. There are, however, deeper reasons for this.
At the root of the problem of the United Nations
ineffectiveness, we see the current situation in the world.
The system of coordinates into which the United Nations
was born 50 years ago has been drastically and
precipitously altered by the rapid disintegration of the
bipolar world and the emergence of new
interrelationships, new problems and new threats to world
security, as well as to the security of individual Member
States. In this situation it is all of us Member States,
expressing the collective will of the United Nations, that
need to determine what kind of United Nations we would
like to see at the turn of the century and, indeed, in the
next 50 years, and what means we would be prepared to
provide to the United Nations in order for it to be
effective in the new situation.
As the representative of one of the many nations
caught up in the vortex of these changes, I am confident
that I express the opinion of all Georgians when I say that
my country looks upon the United Nations both with
disappointment, for the failure to contribute meaningfully
to resolving some of our most burning problems, but also
22

with hope and optimism that the United Nations will finally
bring itself into conformity with the changes in the world
and find the resolve and the means to impose its will and
international law.
This hope is based on the fact that the United Nations
is at its half-century mark and regards this not only as a
time for celebration and commemoration, but, more
importantly, as a time for stock-taking and mapping out its
future activities, in order to be able to rise to the challenges
of the next 50 years and of the twenty-first century.


At the outset, in addressing this distinguished Assembly, I
should like to express to you, Mr. President, our sincere
congratulations on your election to conduct the proceedings
of this fiftieth session of the General Assembly. We are
assured that with your qualities as a statesman and your
diplomatic skills, we shall achieve very constructive results
for the well-being of the international community,
especially at this most important time when we are
commemorating the fiftieth year of the existence of the
United Nations.
We should also like to congratulate His Excellency,
Mr. Amara Essy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Côte d’Ivoire, for the excellent work that he carried out
as President of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth
session.
It is both a timely moment and a pleasure to
highlight the extraordinary and indefatigable performance
of the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, at
the helm of the United Nations. He has demonstrated
outstanding leadership, dynamism and innovative skill in
improving and strengthening the Organization’s capacity
for action in fulfilment of the provisions of the Charter
and of efforts to find solutions for the diverse and
complex situations which have faced the Organization.
We would like to reaffirm our special gratitude to
the Secretary-General for his ongoing support in the
process of consolidating and strengthening democracy in
El Salvador.
The current session of the General Assembly is
particularly important in the historical development of the
United Nations, not only because we are celebrating the
fiftieth anniversary of the creation of an exceptional
institution of universal scope, which was established to
analyse, debate and seek solutions to problems of
common concern to mankind, but also because current
circumstances lend themselves to reflection regarding the
future of our Organization.

Indeed, we have at this time a unique opportunity to
reaffirm our commitment and our political will to
strengthen the role of the Organization, to enhance its
effectiveness in achieving the ideals on which it was
founded, to bring to fruition the aspirations of our peoples,
and to preserve the right of future generations to live in
peace, progress and freedom.
Undeniably, this is a year for reflection, one which
will enable us to assess carefully a half-century of
development and experience acquired in addressing global
issues through joint efforts and collective measures on a
multilateral basis, taking into account not only the
achievements but also the set-backs, with a view to further
perfecting this human endeavour.
The work of the United Nations, as a part of the
international system established in the wake of the Second
World War, reflected the antagonistic nature of international
relations during the cold-war period, which generated
tension and insecurity for nations, unleashing an unbridled
arms race and the threat of a nuclear conflict between the
super-Powers. This was no doubt a key factor in shaping,
and limiting, the work of the Organization.
As we make our assessment, we must acknowledge
that since 1945, despite the existence of the cold war, the
United Nations has achieved much, inter alia, in the
following spheres: fulfilling its mission to establish and
maintain international peace and security, containing local
conflicts in various regions from spreading and at the same
time creating a safety valve for East-West tensions, which
prevented a political and ideological conflict from
degenerating into a widespread confrontation or into nuclear
warfare.
Another achievement, in accordance with the Charter,
was the decolonization process by which many Asian and
African countries, and some on the American continent,
gained independence and joined the community of nations,
thus enriching the Organization by their experience and
contributions.
In this regard, the United Nations has also helped to
foster international cooperation. To this end, an institutional
infrastructure was developed to promote economic and
social development for our peoples through the
establishment of a new international economic order, one
that would generate more favourable conditions and
opportunities for the developing countries to make progress,
thus setting in motion a process of evening out the major
imbalances between North and South.
While these efforts contributed to improving social
conditions in the poorest countries and in countries that
had recently gained independence, certain perceptions and
attitudes led to a development crisis in the 1980s,
curtailing the activities of the United Nations system in
the least developed countries.
Turning to the realm of human rights, considerable
progress was made, beginning with the signing of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December
1948 and the adoption of a host of international
instruments, declarations, plans of action and institutional
machinery for the promotion and monitoring of
international commitments on the part of States. These
include the promotion of the development of women, the
rights of children, the handicapped, minority groups,
indigenous peoples and migrant workers, and, in
particular, a commitment to the struggle to eliminate
racial discrimination in South Africa, which culminated in
1994 with the establishment of a democratic and
multiracial system in that country.
In the field of international law, outstanding progress
was made in the drawing up and codification of
international standards, in particular those conducive to
friendly relations among peoples and to the peaceful
resolution of conflicts.
The thoroughgoing changes in the world order that
led to the end of the cold war are giving rise to the
expectation of more favourable conditions for the
promotion of peace, cooperation and international
security. None the less, reality has shown that these
aspirations have not been met and that, on the contrary,
changes in the international system created conditions that
have unleashed forces that had long been held in check,
giving rise to new conflicts and rivalries, not only as a
result of resurgent nationalism but also as a cause of
serious ethnic, religious, social and cultural differences
which have jeopardized peace and international security.
In this context, we are convinced that at the present
time finding solutions to age-old and new challenges is
beyond the capacity of any one State or group of States.
This has generated new requirements in the global
political area, requiring to resort more and more
frequently to combined efforts and action. The very
dynamics and requirements of this process have in turn
increased the tasks and responsibilities that fall to the
United Nations.
2

For this reason we must provide unwavering support
to the efforts of the United Nations to fulfil its role, not
only in the political sphere but also in the economic and
social areas, particularly through innovations and new
perceptions in peace-keeping and the promotion of
development.
Regarding efforts at global peace-keeping, it is
important to note the new dimension of these peace-keeping
operations, whose action transcends the military aspects,
moving into multidisciplinary activities that include
political, economic, social and humanitarian endeavours.
As regards development, we welcome the fact that
more attention has been paid to economic, social and
environmental issues, with an understanding that their
solution requires coming to grips with, and attempting to
find solutions to, the causes of tensions, instability and
conflicts with greater political will. As such tensions can go
beyond the very borders of nation States, we must lend our
support to an integrated approach, for only in this way can
we consolidate peace, security and democracy, both
nationally and internationally.
Proof of the will to improve the well-being of nations
and assist in their progress can be seen in the major summit
conferences that have been held, as well as in the
formulation of the Secretary-General’s development
programme. These efforts serve as examples of a new
global vision to achieve a consensus on policies and
strategies to promote sustainable human development. None
the less, we cannot but be concerned at the statements made
by the donor community regarding the drying up of funds
for development. This is certainly against the general
expectation of support for the development of our peoples.
Today, the United Nations has different, and more
complex, responsibilities than those it had in a bipolar
world. Although the purposes and principles that inspired
the United Nations at its inception still remain valid, none
the less political situations and the complexity and
magnitude of the challenges we face require clear and
innovative responses.
In the face of these challenges we must be both
determined and prudent, resolved to be advocates of
change, learning from positive experiences and willing to
replace those outmoded practices that impede the smooth
functioning of the Organization.
We believe that the modernization of the United
Nations should be carried out through a comprehensive
process of an integrated nature which would reflect a
consensus deriving from the common interests and shared
responsibilities of the international community.
In this respect, we believe that there should be a
more dynamic, better-coordinated relationship between the
General Assembly, the Security Council and the
Economic and Social Council, one which requires, as the
Secretary-General himself stated, “the determination and
the full commitment of all Member States”. The
industrialized countries bear a special responsibility in this
task, given that with their capabilities and resources they
can provide the Organization with a broad and assured
financial base which will make it possible to enhance its
effectiveness in every sphere.
In this connection, we urge the Heads of State and
Government of the seven industrialized Powers to put into
practice the statement of intention they made at the
twenty-first Economic Summit, held in Halifax, Canada,
in June 1995. We call on those countries, along with
others, to implement a new strategy for international
cooperation in order to rise to the challenges of the
twenty-first century.
The reform of the Security Council falls within the
process of change in the Organization. We support the
idea that the Council should adjust to the new
international structure, not only regarding the number of
its members but also regarding its methods and
procedures of decision-making.
The Government of El Salvador supports an increase
in the membership of the Security Council on a rational
basis which will make its more truly representative and,
as a result, afford greater opportunities for participation
by all Member States, without in any way undermining
the efficient implementation of the tasks assigned to this
important body by the Charter.
Furthermore, we support all those nations which
aspire with legitimate right to becoming Members of the
United Nations and invoke the principle of universality
enshrined in the Charter of the Organization, without
taking into consideration ideological aspects or the
interests of States which carry greater political weight in
the concert of nations. In this respect we share the views
expressed by you, Mr. President, when in your opening
address to this session of the General Assembly you said
that
3

“all States that are not yet Members should seek to be
admitted in the near future” (Official Records of the
General Assembly, Fiftieth Session, Plenary Meetings,
1st meeting, p.22)
I should now like to refer to some specific issues that
are of particular importance in the international political
arena.
With respect to nuclear disarmament we support full
compliance with the commitments contained in the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which
was extended indefinitely last May. We are convinced that
this constitutes a major step towards the strengthening of
the control system for nuclear non-proliferation and the
total elimination of nuclear weapons.
We are fully convinced that preventive diplomacy in
its various manifestations is the appropriate instrument for
deterrence and the limitation of potential conflicts. In this
respect we concur with the statement by the Secretary-
General in his latest report presented to the General
Assembly that
“it is ... better to prevent conflicts ... than to undertake
major politico-military efforts to resolve conflicts once
they have broken out”. (A/50/l, para. 585)
We support his efforts to enable the United Nations to carry
out a constructive and timely role so as to avoid or mitigate
the destructive effects of crises.
I should now like to express a regional point of view
and note with satisfaction that Central America has moved
from an era of confrontation to one of cooperation. We are
now embarking on a stage of constructive achievements
which has enabled us to move forward in our quest to
consolidate a region of peace, freedom, democracy and
development. This new stage results from our having
assumed our historical responsibility with determination,
given the legitimate aspirations of our peoples, who
clamored for peace and the democratization of our societies.
With the assistance and solidarity of the United Nations and
the international community we are achieving these
objectives, which will be completed when the process under
way in Guatemala concludes with a firm and lasting peace
agreement, which has the decisive support of our
Governments.
Now that we have made significant headway in the
political sphere we are focusing our efforts on the social
sphere as an indispensable ingredient, in the conviction that
peace, democracy and development are essential
components for the flourishing of our society.
Given this undeniable reality, the Central American
Presidents have been meeting together to exchange ideas
and experiences so that jointly, with a sense of solidarity
and coordination, we can rise to meet the ever-more-
complex challenges that face us as a result of the process
of political, economic, social and environmental
globalization which characterizes the new world order. An
example of this was the signing of the Treaty on Central
American social integration, which took place at the
presidential summit held at the beginning of this year in
the city of San Salvador.
Moreover, we are pleased to inform the Assembly
that in the past 12 months we have held meetings at the
highest level in Guacimo, Costa Rica; in Masaya,
Nicaragua; in Tegucigalpa, Honduras; and in San
Salvador, the capital of my own country, during which we
adopted critical decisions for the future of our peoples.
We defined our priorities in a new regional agenda which
was given concrete expression by the signing of the
alliance for sustainable development. This embodies both
a strategy and a coordination of interests and
responsibilities with legal harmonization and emphasis on
investment in the social sphere, as we recognize that
human beings are the pivotal point and the principal
subject of development.
The breadth and magnitude of the objectives spelled
out in the new strategy for development exceed the
capacities and resources of our countries, and we believe
that the international community can contribute
generously towards bringing these strategies to fruition.
In this context we ascribe particular importance to
the strengthening of the newly revamped Central
American Integration System (SICA) which has assumed
as one of its main responsibilities the promotion and
implementation of the new Central American agenda.
May we urge the Assembly to extend the observer status
we have applied for to this new organization, SICA.
We can affirm that Central America has now entered
a new era in its history characterized by ongoing
cooperation among our countries, as reflected in our
efforts to create the conditions which will overcome the
obstacles which have done such damage to the cause of
integration, so that we can move forward steadfastly
towards the unification of Central America.
4

In this connection we are particularly pleased at the
recent progress made during the binational Honduras/El
Salvador Commission meeting with a view to complying
with the border demarcation arrangements guaranteeing the
rights of the inhabitants of the border zones on both sides
simultaneously.
In the specific case of my own country we can give a
categorical assurance that in the three years since the
signing of the peace agreements, El Salvador has moved
forward in a constructive way. The commitment of the
Government is firm and unswerving in its determination to
harness the requisite strength to build a new country, a
modern, democratic El Salvador, in which all the sectors of
Salvadorian society will participate without discrimination.
After more than a year at the helm I am pleased to
state that my Government is fulfilling the promises
contained in the inaugural address which I delivered to the
Salvadorian people on 1 June 1994. We have been duly
following up the peace agreements conceived by the entire
nation as a commitment and as an essential prerequisite for
moving forward without any possibility of backsliding as
we build a peaceful society.
During the period of transition from war to peace and
national reconstruction we have devoted ourselves to
consolidating the pacification process in the conviction that
that is a task that must be shared in a responsible manner
among the entire population. That task involves not only
finding a solution to the immediate problems created by 12
years of armed confrontation, but in addition, providing a
comprehensive response to domestic problems, for only
thus can we guarantee that the process will be irreversible
and capable of meeting future challenges in a society of
stability and peace.
Concerning pending commitments under the Peace
Agreements, we acknowledge realistically and in a
constructive spirit that there have been problems, and hence
delays, in complying with some of those provisions as a
result of the highly complex nature of the process. Those
difficulties have been overcome through dialogue and
consensus among the sectors responsible for
implementation. This has enabled us, with the assistance of
the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador, to
alter the established time-tables and to agree on a work
programme for the definitive completion of those
commitments.
We can affirm that we are complying in a responsible
manner with the implementation of the Agreements, but if
for logistical reasons some components were still to be
pending on 31 October next, given that our determination
to comply with those commitments remains steadfast we
would request the Secretary-General to extend the residual
United Nations Mission in El Salvador.
Our responsibility as a Government goes beyond
compliance with the Peace Agreements, for we must
provide a comprehensive response to our national
problems. Hence, with an awareness that lack of
opportunity in our society leads to frustration and despair,
creating tensions and conflicts that jeopardize the peace
process, we have made additional efforts to implement an
ambitious economic plan to develop our society, taking as
our goals the betterment of human welfare, the systematic
alleviation of poverty, and priority attention to health and
education, in addition to promoting productive
employment and generally meeting the basic needs of the
population, especially its most vulnerable sectors that
have traditionally been denied the fruits of economic and
social progress.
We are pleased to report that our Government has
assigned the highest priority to the maintenance of
macroeconomic stability through the implementation of a
consistent and coherent set of monetary, exchange-rate
and fiscal policies. This has enabled us to achieve specific
economic targets, namely, the maintenance of a stable
exchange rate, the reining in of inflation, the elimination
of our fiscal deficit and the reduction of public
expenditure, which has been redirected to social
investment and basic infrastructure.
Our Government is fully convinced that if we are to
enjoy sustained medium- and long-term growth it must be
based on an efficient and competitive productive sector,
both domestically and internationally, and to that end we
have adopted the requisite economic policy measures.
Among these I would mention in particular the
programme to reduce tariffs on the import of capital
goods, inputs and raw materials; support for further
development of the Central American Common Market;
the creation of instruments to facilitate and provide
guarantees to foreign investors; decisive support for
programmes to enhance the competitiveness of the
domestic production base; the promotion of small and
micro enterprises; the development of intensive job-
training programmes; and the implementation of our
national environment strategy as a component of
sustainable development in El Salvador.
5

To achieve those objectives the entire population of
my country is striving to overcome resentment and
antagonisms between different social sectors and thereby
helping to foster the conditions for national stability with a
view to consolidating peace, strengthening democracy and
securing economic and social progress.
The successful example of El Salvador clearly
demonstrates that a Member State of the Organization,
acting in good faith, with transparency and political will,
can overcome situations of severe conflict, principally
through the efforts of its own population but also with the
timely assistance of the international community.
Today, following this exceptional effort to achieve
peace — an effort that is, indeed, still under way — El
Salvador is a country that has learned major historical
lesson. Foremost among them is the knowledge that within
our national community we share a common destiny and
that within the international community all major
undertakings are shared. Learning from those truths, the
challenge facing us all is to build a more human world for
the benefit of present and future generations.


Please accept my warm
congratulations, Sir, on your election as President of the
General Assembly at its fiftieth session. At the same time,
I wish to thank your predecessor, Ambassador Essy, for
his successful work.
The United Nations 50 years on — that makes this
session of the General Assembly an event of extra-special
significance. The people of the world have high
expectations. We must take stock, but in so doing we
must, above all, look to the future.
The representatives of 50 nations who assembled in
San Francisco in the year 1945 were intended to be, as
President Truman put it, “the architects of a better world”.
What has become of their blue-print?
Today the family of nations has 185 members.
Millions of people all over the world owe their lives, their
freedom and their health, their jobs and their homes, to
the United Nations and its specialized agencies.
Decolonization has been completed, apartheid has been
overcome, and respect for human rights is no longer an
internal affair. In the field of disarmament a historic
breakthrough has been achieved: in May of this year the
proliferation of nuclear weapons was halted. That
constitutes a big step towards making the world safe for
mankind.
All these are considerable achievements which many
critics of the United Nations have overlooked in this
jubilee year, achievements on which you, in particular,
Mr. Secretary-General, and your staff are to be
congratulated. Indeed, the United Nations, in spite of
some unjustified criticism, can take pride in what it has
done for the cause of peace, freedom and human dignity.
Especially worthy of our gratitude and appreciation
are the more than 68,000 United Nations troops currently
4

serving on missions in all regions of the world. When
servicemen from Asia, Africa or Latin America attend to
the basic needs of refugees in Europe, in the former
Yugoslavia, and keep the beleaguered people from starving,
then that is, I believe, a marvellous indication that the “one
world” is a reality. Lest we forget: nearly 5,000 of those
troops, the Blue Helmets, have been killed or wounded in
the line of duty. The Convention on the Safety of United
Nations and Associated Personnel must be put into effect as
soon as possible. This we owe to all those who serve the
United Nations.
As we recap the events of the past year, we also have
to consider the huge problems now confronting the world
Organization. The ability to safeguard peace: that is the
world’s main criterion when judging the United Nations.
And here we have reached a critical point.
Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia: these countries stand for
disappointment and setbacks as well. However, I should
like to make it very clear that in such cases the culprit is
quickly found, too quickly. Nothing is more convenient
than to point to the alleged inefficiency of the United
Nations. And nothing could be further from the truth.
When it has not been possible to help people, when
United Nations troops have been humiliated in the former
Yugoslavia, it has in nearly every instance not been the
fault of the United Nations. The problems have lain in its
unsatisfactory mandate, in the lack of political will on the
part of Member States, and, unfortunately, in the shortage
of funds. It is we, the Members, who cause the difficulties.
Following the holding of United Nations troops as
hostages, the atrocities in Zepa and Srebrenica, and the
terrible second bloodbath in Sarajevo’s market place, the
community of nations has demonstrated that there is a limit
to the amount of brutality and contempt for international
law it will tolerate. And there has to be a limit.
The resolve of the United Nations and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has paid off — not
only for the people of Sarajevo, who for three years have
been starving and freezing and kept under constant fire, but
also for the peace process.
Yesterday, here in New York, the parties to the
conflict had another meeting with the Contact Group, of
which Germany is a member. Another step forward was
achieved on the constitutional issue following the result
achieved in Geneva, and I believe this step to be a decisive
one. For the first time since the conflict began there is a
realistic prospect of a negotiated peace settlement.
But I should like to warn against being over-
euphoric. A lot has still to be done. We shall have to put
one stone on top of another stone in order to finish this
building. This time none of the participants should leave
the conference table until an agreement has been
reached — a peaceful agreement at the negotiating table,
and not an agreement on the basis of military actions.
Anyone who continues to prefer bloodshed, to prefer
military actions, will be taking a great responsibility upon
himself.
From the beginning, Germany has played an active
part in these efforts. We have never taken sides, nor did
we ever want to take sides, against one party; rather, we
have always taken up the cause of the victims, those who
have been tormented and driven from their homes.
To date, the German Government’s humanitarian aid
in the region amounts to more than 1 billion Deutsche
marks. And I should like to stress strongly that we have
no double standards, nor should we have double
standards. In the short time since August, we have
provided more than 6 million marks to help Serbian
refugees from Krajina.
My country has contributed in various ways to all
peace-keeping operations. By sending medical personnel
to Split and deploying Tornado fighters for the first
time — fighters which we have made available in
Piacenze, Italy — in a United Nations peace-keeping
mission, we have also shown that we do not merely talk
about taking on more responsibility, but that we act to do
so.
We will also meet our responsibility when it comes
to implementing the terms of a peace settlement — and
I hope that this settlement will come soon. The
reconstruction of Bosnia’s economy requires a genuinely
international cooperative effort, an effort on the part of
the international community. The European Union — and
Germany, of course, as a member of the European
Union — will play its part.
What lessons can and must we learn from what has
happened in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia?
First, the United Nations must confine itself to doing
what is feasible. Its resources are obviously being strained
beyond the limit. It cannot take on every responsibility. It
5

cannot solve all the problems that the world is confronted
with.
Secondly, the extent and duration of the commitment
of the United Nations must be more precise, the political
and military objectives must be clearly defined, and there
must be a realistic and, above all, coherent mandate.
Thirdly, if the world Organization is going to
intervene, then it must act consistently and resolutely. There
must be no repetition of what happened in Rwanda or Zepa
or Srebrenica.
Fourthly, cooperation between the United Nations and
other organizations such as NATO must from the outset be
planned in such a way that maximum speed and, above all,
efficiency are assured.
Fifthly, we believe that the regional organizations must
play a larger role than they have done so far. Not every
problem must go straight to the United Nations. In Europe,
for instance, and in other places of the world too, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) could assume much greater responsibility.
However, we have to enable it to do so.
Still, let there be no illusions. Peace-keeping is not just
a fair-weather exercise. Such missions will always be apt to
create problems for the world Organization.
And, in view of the hundreds of thousands of lives
that have been saved in Somalia and Bosnia, who can argue
with an easy conscience that the United Nations should not
have intervened? And many of these people have already
been forgotten. What is required here is an increased peace-
keeping capacity — constructive help, not destructive
criticism.
And to those who over and over again have called into
question the actions of the United Nations and its peace-
keeping operations, I would like to address the following
question: Is there an alternative? Who could take the place
of the United Nations? Indeed, Europe has not been able to
cope with this tragedy in its own house as well as we all
hoped it would.
But nor should we forget the European Union’s
achievements in the former Yugoslavia. It paved the way
for the Contact Group’s ongoing peace efforts.
To my mind, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia
emphasizes how important and right it was for Western
Europe to embark on a new course after the Second
World War, a course that was directed against nationalism
and against the use of force. For four decades, as a result
of the East-West conflict, not all European nations were
able to follow that route of the European Community,
today’s European Union.
The European Union is now striving to correct that
terrible aberration and bridge the gulfs that separate it
from Central and Eastern Europe. The goal is one Europe,
a Europe in which the old big-Power politics and
hegemonic aspirations can never again take root.
That Europe must have a legitimate place for Russia,
but for Ukraine as well. The European house does not
consist solely of the European Union: it has many rooms.
Neither of these two nations, Russia or Ukraine, should
be left outside. To our Russian and Ukrainian partners
and friends I say: Europe needs your contribution and it
does so also in bringing peace to the former Yugoslavia.
Here their new partnership with the European Union and
NATO must — and, I add, will — prove its value.
Many feared that when the East-West confrontation
disappeared Europe would focus exclusively on its own
affairs. That has not been the case. The European Union
is intensifying its political, economic and cultural
cooperation with the other regions of the world.
In Asia, Africa and Latin America it is already a
model for peace, prosperity and regional integration. In
the United Nations the European Union is the principal
partner for dialogue with the developing countries.
The European Union and Germany have been
particularly active in promoting peace and economic
recovery in the Middle East. The recent agreement on the
West Bank worked out by Yassir Arafat and Shimon
Peres is another important milestone on the road to lasting
peace in that region. I congratulate both sides on their
courage and on their far-sightedness. The United States is
playing a major part in this process in this region. We are
grateful to them for that. Egypt has rendered an important
contribution as an intermediary.
Increasing the peace-keeping capacity of the United
Nations also involves reforming the Security Council.
There is now a global consensus, I believe, that this is
necessary.
The first steps towards reform have already been
taken. More changes have been made to the Council’s
6

methods of work and more transparency achieved in the
past two years than in the whole of the previous four
decades.
Like many other Member States, Germany considers
that the Council should have more permanent and non-
permanent members. The nations of Asia, Africa and Latin
America need wider representation and I think we owe it to
them. They have deserved it. The same applies to several
countries with an important global role.
Germany, with the support of many Member States,
has announced its interest in permanent membership of the
Security Council. Our willingness to assume greater
responsibility, also within this framework, is for us the
logical and consistent extension of our commitment to the
United Nations. This commitment is consistent with the
fundamental principle of our foreign policy, which is to
give priority to multilateral cooperation. We have abided by
that principle in pursuing European integration, and we
believe that that same principle would help us play a useful
role in the Security Council.
The world finds itself faced with many new conflicts
and challenges. It is crucial that in dealing with them we
should focus our efforts more than we have done so far on
conflict prevention. A political solution must remain the
first option. That requires wider use of human rights
observers, improvements in the United Nations early
warning system, the promotion of democratization and the
observation of election processes, as successfully done
recently in Mozambique.
We have provided a list of experienced intermediaries
for the tasks of preventive diplomacy. The example of
Macedonia shows what the preventive deployment of
United Nations Blue Helmets can achieve. I am very happy
about the agreement that has been achieved between Greece
and Macedonia on this extremely important issue.
Preventing fire can save countless lives and in any case it
is cheaper than putting fires out. On my recent visit to
Rwanda I was deeply shocked, in the truest sense of the
word, by the atrocities that have been perpetrated there by
human beings on other human beings. If the United Nations
had intervened at an early stage and resolutely, many lives
could have been saved.
Germany has set up a substantial emergency aid
programme for Rwanda. We are trying in particular to do
something about the awful prison conditions. I myself
visited prisons, in Kigali for example, and I must tell you
that I have never seen anything like that in all my life.
Urgent remedies are needed here to ensure that one
injustice is not followed by another. I travelled to Burundi
too, and I returned deeply saddened and concerned. We
must not make the same mistakes in Burundi.
Disarmament, arms control and confidence-
building — these are some of the main components of
conflict prevention. In recent years we have made the
kind of progress that no one would have believed possible
at the height of the arms race 15 years ago. The task of
buttressing this breakthrough and building on the
achievements has acquired great political significance.
A few weeks ago we commemorated the fiftieth
anniversary of the first atomic bomb explosions over
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons must never,
never, be used again. They must be eliminated
completely, as required by article VI of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That aim was
reaffirmed by the nuclear Powers at the New York
Conference extending the Treaty.
Never has the door to a ban on every kind of
nuclear-test explosion been wider open than today. We
must now direct all our efforts to the achievement of this
goal. The Geneva negotiations must produce such a
comprehensive ban by the autumn of 1996 at the latest.
Anti-personnel mines, too, are “weapons of mass
destruction”. Day in, day out, they are taking a terrible
toll on human life, and many of the victims are women
and, above all, innocent children. If any kind of weapon
must be outlawed, then this one should be.
Eliminating this scourge is a task of the highest
priority, particularly in Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique,
Afghanistan, Georgia and Cambodia. Germany, together
with its European partners, will continue the initiative in
this direction during this session of the General
Assembly.
At the First Review Conference of the Convention
on certain conventional weapons, which opened in Vienna
the day before yesterday, tougher export restrictions will
have to be agreed on and a strict ban imposed on the use
of anti-personnel mines.
I appeal to all Members of the United Nations: In
the name of humanity, accede to the Convention on
certain conventional weapons as quickly as possible.
7

There are good reasons why the work of the United
Nations began with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The United Nations is more than a mere gathering
of sovereign States. It is based on the common belief in the
dignity and worth of every human being, and it is my view
that this must remain the focal point of all political activity.
Universal Children’s Day, celebrated a week ago,
reminded us of the awful fate to which these, the weakest
members of society, are often exposed. The United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) therefore needs the support of
every one of us.
The task of helping those people all over the world
who have been persecuted and deprived of their rights must
remain at the top of the political agenda. Pressure from the
international community, the media, non-governmental
organizations and private citizens must be maintained.
Those who torture people and who treat human rights with
contempt should not be able to sleep peacefully. To this
end, the High Commissioner’s position will have to be
strengthened and the Centre for Human Rights better
equipped. People who commit war crimes must know that
they will be prosecuted under international criminal law.
Hence, Germany strongly urges the establishment of a
permanent international court of justice.
But above all, stronger measures to protect minorities
are called for. “Ethnic cleansing” is no basis for peaceful
coexistence, either in Europe or anywhere else.
More than 27 million people are today on the move.
This is one of the most dramatic events of our time. The
cause is not only hunger and distress, but, in most cases,
unfortunately, ethnic and religious fanaticism. Diversity of
culture and tradition is one of the world’s greatest assets,
and no one should seek to impose a particular model of
society on others.
The fact that there exists a core of human rights which
everyone has to respect is quite a different matter. This was
reaffirmed at the Vienna Conference and should not be
challenged by anyone.
Today the dialogue of cultures is central to the quest
for peace. I have invited leading representatives of the
Islamic world to come to Germany in November to
participate in such a dialogue. My feeling is that we have
to learn to understand each other better. I have also urged
that the Bosnia Contact Group closely coordinate its efforts
with the Islamic Contact Group.
In Germany, two and a half million Muslims are
living harmoniously with the local community. In my
view, it is extremely important that we should develop
cooperation and mutual trust at the international level as
well, and I am speaking as the German Foreign Minister.
Islam cannot be equated with terrorism or
fundamentalism. No new enemy stereotypes must be
allowed to develop. I think that we should be happy that
we have been able to do away with the old ones.
Peace and development are inseparable. Any reform
of the United Nations worthy of that name should
therefore encompass economic and social matters as well.
This fiftieth anniversary is a unique opportunity to create
a modern framework for a new development in
partnership. Work on the Agenda for Development must
therefore be completed as soon as possible.
Apart from improving and simplifying the finance
regime for United Nations development activities, the
chief concern is to coordinate and efficiently implement
the results of the world conferences on the environment,
social problems, population growth and women —
especially the Conference on Women that has just ended
in Beijing.
These are the main interrelated issues of our time as
we pursue the goal of peace. The planet Earth must
remain habitable for future generations as well. Progress
is possible only through equal and fair partnership
between North and South. Germany will continue to exert
every effort to this end.
None of this can be done unless we can come to
grips with the biggest crisis confronting the United
Nations: that of its financial situation. There is no reason
to deny that it has assumed dramatic proportions; one has
to be quite frank about this. This crisis can be overcome
only if all contributors, and especially the main ones,
meet their obligations punctually. Germany is the third
largest contributor to the United Nations, and we pay our
bills. We cannot allow a situation to continue where those
who pay their contributions on time are also burdened
with the arrears of wealthier Members. Unless decisive
action is taken very soon, whole areas of activity could
grind to a halt.
I very much welcome the confirmation by the
American Secretary of State that the United States stands
by the obligations arising from its membership. The
United Nations needs an America that fulfils its
8

leadership role, just as the United States needs a world
Organization capable of, and willing to undertake, reform.
How can we overcome this financial crisis? First, we
must restore the balance between the budgets for peace-
keeping operations and the regular budget of the United
Nations. We cannot allow resources for such operations to
be used up to the point of depletion while at the same time
funds for urgent programmes of economic or social
development are either non-existent or have to be cut back.
Secondly, it is time we found a scale of assessments
that reflects Members’ actual ability to pay. You,
Mr. Secretary-General, have made great efforts to
rationalize the Organization’s work, to ensure budgetary
discipline and to reduce staff. I appeal to all Member States
to give Under-Secretary-General Paschke the support he
needs for his difficult job.
The United Nations is indispensable to the task of
maintaining global order and as a forum and instrument for
international cooperation, today no less than in the era after
the Second World War. No other organization has the same
ability to focus the interests and energies of the world’s
nations, which we believe is necessary.
The United Nations is not “the others”, but us, the
Members. And this Organization is only as strong and as
united as we, its Members, make it.
Hence my appeal today to the Assembly: let us stop
our constant vacillation between euphoria and
disappointment regarding the United Nations. Let us stop
apportioning blame, which leads nowhere. Let us rather
merge vision and pragmatism, solidarity and responsibility
for our own actions into a rational and realistic international
partnership under the aegis of the United Nations. Let us
give this world Organization more clout and make it more
efficient and economical. Yes, we will have to slim down
the United Nations. It has to save money. Let us do these
things in a constructive spirit, together with, and on behalf
of, the United Nations. Let us give the United Nations what
it needs — including paying our dues.
That is what the world community expects of us now,
and rightly so. That is the task facing the family of nations
on the threshold of the new millennium. If the reforms fail,
there will be only losers.
“Hope is the pillar of the world”, they say in South
Africa. Fifty years ago, such a pillar of hope for mankind
was erected in San Francisco. Let us do everything to
ensure that this pillar will continue to support the hopes
of mankind in the next 50 years as well. Germany will
continue to play its part.


On behalf of my Government I congratulate
Mr. Freitas do Amaral of Portugal on his election to the
presidency of the General Assembly at its fiftieth session,
a crucial time in the history of the Organization. I should
like at the outset to express our full readiness to make a
major contribution to the success of the deliberations under
his leadership.
I should also like to express our appreciation and
gratitude to Minister Amara Essy of Côte d’Ivoire for his
excellent performance as President of the General Assembly
at its forty-ninth session.
The peoples of the world believed that the end of the
cold war would bring peace and prosperity — and they are
still waiting. Indeed the changes that have taken place in
international relations have not been accompanied by
changes of a similar magnitude in the relations between the
industrialized North and the impoverished South. On the
contrary, the situation of developing countries, far from
having improved, is deteriorating further. The international
trade system does not meet the expectations that there
would be access to markets and transparency in the rules of
the game. Poverty has not been reduced, social
development is at a standstill, the scientific and
technological development of the South continues to lag
and the external debt problem is still a heavy burden on our
economies.
It is our duty now to realize the dream of those who
wrote the San Francisco Charter — something that has been
postponed for 50 years by a cold war and dozens of
regional conflicts and overshadowed by the grief of the
victims of armed conflicts.
The period of transition through which the
international system is passing should not lead us to accept
so-called unilateral solutions to problems that are global in
nature nor to permit the emergence of a new era of
intervention in matters that lie within the domestic
jurisdiction of States. There is an imperative need to
concert policies and coordinate strategies to face
international problems and to foster constructive links
between North and South.
The United Nations, which was a stage for the cold
war, must now cooperate in eradicating poverty, in
making sustainable human development viable, in
guaranteeing equality of rights between men and women
and in giving full effect to human rights — in other
words, it must work on behalf of human beings — all
human beings — without distinction of any kind
whatsoever. The United Nations has the responsibility to
strive to make the hopes and expectations that arose at the
end of the cold war a reality and not the source of new
frustrations.
The current situation requires a modern United
Nations attuned to the new times, a pluralistic and
democratic Organization that will be an instrument for the
promotion of a world order that can make the right to
development a reality and achieve peace. The building of
a new international system to replace the hegemonic,
weapons-based and unilateral practices of the past is a
goal towards which we must work from within this
Organization.
The international system we aspire to create is one
compatible with interdependence and autonomy, with the
strengthening of the international organization and with
full respect for the sovereign equality of States, one
compatible with economic development and devoted to
the significant improvement of the living conditions of the
poorest segments of the population.
It is indispensable to forge a new economic model
that can satisfy the needs of our people, one characterized
by social justice and equity, efficiency and
competitiveness. At the same time, we are convinced that
genuine and representative democracy, free from foreign
interference, must be the key element in preserving peace
and observing the basic principles of respect for the
fundamental rights of the human person and of economic
and social development.
For the preservation of peace, security and
international stability it is indispensable that the nuclear-
weapon States act responsibly and immediately
discontinue nuclear testing. In this regard, we deplore the
recent nuclear tests that have been carried out,
notwithstanding the opposition of the international
community to that practice.
Next month the Eleventh Summit Meeting of the
members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries will
take place in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia. My country
looks forward to the attendance of leaders of developing
32

nations and is prepared to shoulder the creative challenge
of presiding over the Movement for the next three years.
In recent decades, under the leadership of His
Excellency President Soeharto of Indonesia, the Non-
Aligned Movement adopted a new course, one in tune with
current reality, abandoning the confrontational context in
favour of cooperation as the central focus of its action. We
shall continue to pursue that task with enthusiasm.
With the same determination with which it succeeded
in its struggle against colonialism, the non-aligned countries
must now face the challenge of eradicating poverty and
closing the vast gap between rich and poor and between
developed and developing countries.
In the twenty-first century non-alignment will mean a
commitment to peace and to the well-being and progress of
our peoples, as well as action against poverty and
marginalization. It will also entail a commitment to
cooperation in dealing with global problems and a struggle
for participation and against unilateralism and imposition.
In facing the next century, non-alignment must
participate actively in the reform of international
institutions, including the United Nations and the Bretton
Woods institutions. Non-alignment must also promote the
needed changes in the structures of cooperation and the
dynamic modalities by which developed countries and
international institutions provide resources for the
implementation of projects and programmes of South-South
cooperation.
One of the global problems that calls for an effective
multilateral strategy headed by the United Nations is that of
illegal drugs. This is not an issue that can be dealt with by
a single country or small group of nations. This is a
transnational crime of vast proportions, overwhelming
dimensions and the greatest perils. It is a crime without
nationality.
We Colombians have suffered more than anyone from
the devastating effects of this problem. We have suffered
death and corruption as a consequence of the huge profits
to be derived from this illegal activity. We find it
surprising, therefore, to note that the international
community is not fully aware of the real nature and
dimensions of the problem of illicit drugs.
We are dealing with an illegal economic activity with
dimensions that have been compared with those of the oil
industry. It is seven or eight times greater than the gross
national product of a nation like Colombia; it operates in
dozens of countries and entails a number of linked
activities, including money laundering and the deviation
of chemical precursors. Such linked activities generally
take place in developed countries and are as important as
the growing of coca leaves or their transformation into
cocaine.
Many studies indicate an increase in the
consumption of illegal drugs in industrialized countries as
well as an increase in new markets throughout the world.
World statistics demonstrate that deaths from drug abuse
have trebled since 1988 and that an increase of 1000 per
cent has been observed in medical emergencies due to
cocaine overdose between 1978 and 1993.
My country has battled, with more success than any
other, against the producers of and traffickers in illegal
drugs. Colombia eradicated marihuana crops in the 1970s,
destroyed the Medellín Cartel in the 1980s and dismantled
the Cali Cartel in the 1990s.
Colombia is responsible for more than 50 per cent of
the poppy crops eradicated worldwide and for the
confiscation of more than a quarter of the total amount of
cocaine and cocaine base seized globally.
The eradication of illegal crops in Colombia must be
accompanied by similar efforts to bring about the
eradication of marihuana crops in other countries,
including in some industrialized countries in the North.
During the first year of President Ernesto Samper’s
Administration, the anti-drug cartel policy has produced
results that no prior administration in Colombia, or in any
other nation, has been able to achieve.
Thanks to Colombia’s success, the world now has a
historic opportunity to defeat drug trafficking once and
for all. Yet this opportunity could be missed if adequate
measures are not immediately adopted to combat money
laundering, the deviation of precursor chemicals and
permissive consumption.
My country has proposed creating a special unit of
the Economic and Social Council to oversee measures of
international cooperation, the adoption of an inter-
American convention against money laundering and the
convening in 1997 of an international conference to
evaluate the results of the Vienna Convention and to
make the necessary adjustments to it.
33

There is still time for the international community to
face up to its responsibility to bring about the final defeat
of this international scourge.