Allow me first to
extend to our President's distinguished predecessor, His
Excellency Didier Opertti, Foreign Minister of Uruguay,
President of the fifty-third session of the General Assembly,
our gratitude for the excellent manner in which he
conducted the work of the previous session.
Allow me also to offer to the Republic of Kiribati, the
Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga the
congratulations and warmest good wishes of the
Government and the people of Sri Lanka on their election
to membership of the General Assembly of the United
Nations. We welcome them and assure them of our
unstinted support as they take up their places in the
Assembly of nations.
Our President's well-deserved election to the chair of
this historic final session of the General Assembly of the
United Nations for the twentieth century gives us great
pleasure. Many of us, Foreign Ministers, have known him
well over the years. We have worked with him, and we
have greatly admired the energy and dedication that he has
brought to the performance of his duties as the Permanent
Representative of his country. The developing countries in
particular have cause to remember with gratitude the role
he has played in the deliberations of the Non-Aligned
Movement and the G-77. He brings to his office wide
experience of the systems and practices of the United
Nations. He also brings to his office a high degree of
sensitivity to the important issues of the day.
I noticed with keen interest that in his opening
statement to the Assembly the President referred in
considerable detail to the problem of child soldiers. This
reference was particularly heartening to me as I had, on the
basis of the Graca Machel report, first brought the issue of
child soldiers to the attention of the Assembly in the course
of my address in 1997. In Sri Lanka a rebel group has for
several years been conscripting children, even as young as
10, for battle. Even worse, it has been making children,
girls and boys, into suicide bombers, thus creating a
horrible new phenomenon of depravity and cruelty that the
world has never seen before. If the conscience of the world
is not outraged by the tragic fate of these children in my
country, then nothing will move us to action in defence of
the young and the helpless anywhere. In his opening
address to the General Assembly, the President referred
to the boast of the “soulless recruiters” that children
“are numerous and readily available, more malleable
and impressionable, learn quickly, are small and
agile, and quite simply require less food and
supplies than adults”.
He described their fate as “horrendous” and said that in
his view it
“demands that the United Nations show renewed
commitment and redouble its efforts as the
repository of humanity's conscience and social
justice in the world.” (A/54/PV.1)
The President referred to the work being done by inter-
governmental and non-governmental organizations to save
children, and exhorted them to
“continue to blame and shame Governments for not
doing enough to protect our children's lives and their
future.” (ibid)
But in some countries Governments are completely
blameless. In Sri Lanka no Government, either before
independence 50 years ago or after, has ever recruited
children under 18 years of age into the armed forces. In
my country it is only the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam (LTTE) that resorts to this abominable practice.
These rebel groups are beyond the pale of the law. They
acknowledge no international conventions. They are not
answerable to any international body. And yet they must
be brought to book. Some of them, the LTTE included,
operate with impunity in certain countries, wearing the
innocent garb of charitable, religious or social
organizations. They collect money for ostensibly anodyne
purposes. But in fact the money goes to buy weapons for
war. And, in truth, host Governments which provide
shelter to these organizations under the umbrella of liberal
laws of asylum and immigration know, or could easily
find out, that those moneys are going to fuel the very war
into which young children are being dragooned. These
Governments adopt as their explanation for inaction the
impeccable excuse that they do not have laws under
which fund-raising for terrorist purposes can be punished.
This is true, but it will soon cease to be true when the
convention for the suppression of the financing of
terrorism is adopted — we hope and pray — at this fifty-
fourth session of the General Assembly, requiring all
signatory States to enact domestic legislation in keeping
with the provisions of the convention.
25

The Secretary-General in his report (S/1999/957) to
the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed
conflict has recommended that the Security Council urge
Member States to support the proposal to raise the
minimum age for recruitment and participation in hostilities
to 18, and demand that non-State actors involved in conflict
not use children below the age of 18 in hostilities, or face
the imposition of targeted sanctions if they do not comply.
One of the most effective sanctions would be the
proscription of such organizations in countries where they
presently collect money without let or hindrance, or their
being named terrorist organizations, as by the United States
of America, for instance, and the consequent illegalization
of their activities.
Since 1997 there has been considerable progress on
the question of child soldiers. The issue is now on centre
stage. Regional conferences have been held, and a world
conference is to be held next year. The office of the Special
Representative of the Secretary General for Children and
Armed Conflict is operational. A growing number of
countries refer to this issue in the General Assembly and at
other forums. Most recently the Foreign Ministers of the
Nordic Countries roundly condemned the practice and
pledged their support for its eradication. The Security
Council has unanimously adopted its first-ever resolution on
the plight of children. The first decade of the next
millennium has been designated the International Decade
for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children
of the World. And the President stated that he would make
it his business to add his “voice and devotion to” the
“laudable efforts to make the twenty-first century one
of love and security for every child in the world.”
(ibid)
In Sri Lanka we have decided to set up a rehabilitation
centre for the children who desert the rebel army. The task
of restoring them to health and normalcy is a daunting one.
It is a task for which we can certainly use all the help we
can get from those who have experience in that field.
My plea to the General Assembly today, two years
after I first brought up the question of child soldiers, is that
we must proceed with the utmost dispatch to rescue these
children from their fate. They are already scarred; if we do
not act quickly they will be scarred beyond redemption.
We leave the twentieth century with many spectacular
achievements behind us. But let us make no mistake — we
move into the twenty-first century carrying with us old,
intractable problems that have been with us since the dawn
of time. As the present century draws to a close, new
problems of unparalleled menace and danger have
emerged. They will undoubtedly occupy our attention well
into the next century.
Poverty, illiteracy, ill-health, hunger, unemployment,
uncontrolled urbanization, the growth of mega cities —
these are old problems which deeply affect over half of
humanity.
We have not addressed these problems with
sufficient vigour over the past decades. While the United
Nations systems were set up to tackle these problems, the
capacity of the system to deliver results has been grossly
inadequate.
The challenge of fighting human poverty must
necessarily continue to have the highest priority. The poor
continue to become poorer, remaining deprived of the
basic necessities of life. This is morally outrageous in an
era of abundance and conspicuous consumption. Poverty
degrades humanity and is a threat to the most basic of all
human rights. The onus is on us to unite, to wage a moral
war, to eliminate the scourge of poverty from our midst.
Sri Lanka is of the view that any development
agenda of the future must contain a social dimension and
assure protection to the most vulnerable elements of our
society. It is in this regard that the international
community must move beyond the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries Debt Initiative. By revising the criteria of
classification, we would expand the number of countries
that could be helped towards achieving meaningful
reduction in both the stock of debt and its servicing. Debt
relief and official development assistance, which has been
dwindling in recent years, should be restored to its former
levels, void of conditionality, at least for the least
developed countries. A positive step would be the
cancellation of their foreign debt. This would help release
their very limited resources for social and poverty
alleviation programmes. They must be urgently put on the
path to sustainable development, if they are to survive.
Though relieving these countries of a major portion of
their debt burden is a commendable step, it is equally
important to ensure that they do not relapse into the
poverty trap.
The time has come for the countries of the South to
formulate an effective and implementable economic
agenda. The recommendations of the Non-Aligned
Movement ad hoc panel of economists are of primary
importance in organizing the substantive work of the
26

agenda for the South. They include the need for the
elaboration and regular updating of the developing
countries' agenda; development of a networking system
between countries of the South, involving specialists and
researchers in the various fields of importance; an economic
coordination scheme to help identify and analyse aspects of
international economic and trade-related issues; and the
assembling and launching of expert groups, which could
mobilize those national and inter-South institutions, like the
South Centre in Geneva.
The South Centre could be a possible coordinating
mechanism, which could facilitate the implementation of
the South agenda. With the increased marginalization of
developing countries in matters of international finance and
trade, it is imperative that we urgently put in place a
coordinating mechanism to implement the recommendations
made by the ad hoc panel of economists.
The general thrust of globalization and liberalization
of the international economy has now become irreversible.
The growing linkages between countries, the opening up of
markets, the spread of investments, the impact of
technology on standardizing products, the shrinking of
distances and the speed of modern communications, offer
new windows of opportunity for developing countries,
especially if their positive aspects are seized upon and their
pitfalls avoided. The task facing us in the developing world
today is one of adapting this twin process to conform to our
own specific requirements and priorities. This, in our view,
would be the primary objective of an economic agenda of
the South in the evolving global economy of the future.
Although there have been significant developments in
the world economy under the influence of the doctrine of
globalization and liberalization, it is imperative to recognize
its limitations and drawbacks where developing countries
are concerned. We need to grapple with the reality and
shake off any feelings of complacency. It is now
increasingly evident that the benefits of globalization have
by and large bypassed much of the developing world,
despite strict adherence to the tenets of the structural
adjustment policies. The poorest among us — spanning the
continents of Africa, Central America and Asia — have
experienced increasing marginalization in the world
economy.
Surveying the South, we find it evident that
globalization and liberalization have, paradoxically,
increased the economic gap between rich and poor
countries. This is the conclusion reached in the tenth United
Nations Development Programme Human Development
Report. Domestic liberalization measures undertaken by
many of the developing countries have also contributed
towards a widening of the gap between the rich and the
poor. A number of countries have recorded some
acceleration of economic growth in the wake of
liberalization and deregulation. But they have also
witnessed a shift in income distribution in favour of those
in the upper income groups. Domestic policy reforms
undertaken by a large number of developing counties in
the direction of liberalization and deregulation have not
secured for them a place on the “Globalization Express”.
The globalization and liberalization process is
unfolding in a manner which gives developing countries
little voice in shaping the policy framework that
underpins this procedure. The ad hoc panel of economists
under the aegis of the Non-Aligned Movement, which
was set up on a proposal made by Sri Lanka, has
concluded that there is very little opportunity for
developing countries to be represented at discussions and
in the councils under which various aspects of the
globalization process are assessed, monitored and tailored.
Initial optimism on globalization and liberalization
is being replaced by anxiety and concern. The emergent
economies in Asia are in crisis, experiencing sharp
downward pressures on their currencies and capital
markets and experiencing stresses, not only on their
economic structures, but also on their social fabric and
political processes. Fears of widespread international
repercussions have borne fruit, and the impact of
contagion is all too evident. A bitter lesson that has
become all too obvious is the vulnerability of economies
to uncontrolled financial flows of various kinds,
particularly those of a speculative nature.
The globalization and liberalization environment
contains no safeguards to control and regulate
destabilizing forces in a situation in which rapid
movements of vast amounts of capital across national
borders is a daily reality. The response of the multilateral
financial institutions and the major Powers to the East
Asian crisis has been ad hoc and ex post facto, but the
need in the first place was for preventive mechanisms.
In this milieu, Sri Lanka's response has been to
maintain as best it could a steady level of economic
growth, despite an unfavourable external economic
environment. Our capital account transactions have only
partially been liberalized. In our view, foreign direct
investment should be of a medium or long-term nature in
27

order to discourage excessive outflow of short-term capital
during a financial crisis.
It is now virtually established wisdom that the least
developed countries have been increasingly marginalized in
the globalization and liberalization process. A restructuring
of the global financial architecture must include special
protection for these most vulnerable segments of our global
society. Since a crisis in any one part of the global structure
has the power to cause havoc in the rest of the world
economy, we must look beyond national solutions to global
ones, for both are now irrevocably interlinked.
Sri Lanka, as chair of the Group of 24, has taken a
special interest in building a consensus among developing
countries on the issues of reforming the global financial
architecture, and also on the matter of implementation of
World Trade Organization agreements. As a member of
regional groupings, such as the Group of 15, the Group of
77, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Bangladesh-India-
Myanmar-Sri Lanka-Thailand Economic Cooperation
(BIMST-EC) and the Indian Ocean Rim Association for
Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC), and also as the current
chair of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC), Sri Lanka hopes to play a part in
evolving a developing country consensus on this issue and
initiating a healthy debate with developed countries, with
the hope of establishing a new, dynamic, mutually
beneficial international financial architecture. As a part of
this effort, we have been active in promoting a South-South
dialogue and developing an agenda for the South.
In this connection, I wish to commend the
observations of the German Foreign Minister in his speech
to the Assembly a few days ago. He said:
“The United Nations third major task alongside
peacekeeping and promoting human rights in the
coming century will be to bring about a reconciliation
between rich and poor countries ... The development
of the poorer and the poorest countries must not be
left to the invisible hand of the global market ... The
rich countries have a responsibility to help poor
countries take advantage of globalization and enable
them to have a fairer share of the world economy by
assisting them with internal reforms and by opening
up markets ... Development cooperation in the
broadest sense must become one of the United Nations
core tasks to a greater degree than hitherto. Science
and technology are geared far too much to the
problems of rich countries.” (A/54/PV.8)
The phenomenon of nations pooling their resources
and strengths, either for collective security or economic
development, has been a particular phenomenon of the
second half of this century. South Asia has been no
exception, the only difference being that the process of
regional cooperation commenced relatively late — just 15
years ago — in comparison to other parts of the world.
We were also clear from the very outset that our
endeavours were targeted solely for economic and social
development.
The early phase of regional cooperation in South
Asia required the building of the necessary institutional
capacities of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC). Once these capacities were in
place, we began during the last decade to work on the
core issues of economic and commercial cooperation.
We have made some progress in tariff liberalization
in South Asia under the SAARC Preferential Trading
Arrangement. This progress has given us the confidence
to contemplate the more ambitious task of establishing a
regional free-trade area. At the SAARC Summit in
Colombo hosted by Sri Lanka last year, a decision was
taken, and thereafter implemented, to begin drafting the
legal treaty for a free-trade regime.
The Colombo Summit also manifested our
determination as a region to equip ourselves to maximize
the opportunities afforded by the process of globalization.
Our Commerce Ministers have been meeting regularly to
prepare for the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Ministerial Meeting in Seattle. We will be spelling out in
Seattle our views on the achievements so far of the
multilateral trading system that has now been put in place
and the course corrections we believe are required. We
have also networked our central banks and finance
Ministries since the Colombo Summit, to strengthen our
capacities to anticipate and cope with developments in the
international financial system.
The economic focus of our regional cooperation has
not made us unmindful of our other primary objective,
namely of social advancement for our region. The
challenges our region faces are many. They relate to
education, the empowerment of women, health and
population issues, and so on. We are trying to evolve a
link between regional goals and national programmes in
the social sector through a depoliticized common vision.
To this end we have, again after the Colombo Summit,
commenced work on a Social Charter for South Asia.
28

The gains we have made in regional cooperation in
South Asia are certainly not the material of which
sensational headlines are made. In fact, they may even have
gone unnoticed in some quarters. Yet we in South Asia
know that our achievements are incremental, durable and
long-lasting. Whatever may be the burdens imposed by
history on our region, our common aspiration for the
development and welfare of our peoples brings the
Governments of South Asia together in collective
endeavour. Our organization has an inherent strength and
resilience that has enabled it to weather serious crises in
relations between some of our members. It has emerged
stronger after each such test of its capacity for collective
action.
Among the new problems of unparalleled menace and
danger that have emerged towards the close of the present
century are heightened terrorist activities in many countries
and ever-proliferating criminal activities in the areas of
narcotics, human trafficking and arms smuggling. Every
time I have spoken from this rostrum, I have argued that
terrorism must be tackled collectively if it is to be tackled
effectively at all. In earlier years this plea seemed to fall on
deaf ears. But a rash of terrorist bombings in the West
galvanized the rich and powerful countries into action.
Today we have one Convention in place and two others
under consideration at this very session. I am content this
year merely to reiterate my plea that there should be no
relaxation in the fight against terrorism. I urge other
countries, particularly in the West, to follow the lead of the
United States of America in enacting legislation to outlaw
terrorist organizations.
In the unfolding debate on the stand-off between state
sovereignty and the rights of individuals being subjected to
massive human-rights violations, we must be careful to see
that terrorist organizations do not reap the benefit of
misplaced sympathy in situations of civil conflict. Those
who resort to terror in pursuit of their political objectives
must never be permitted or encouraged to believe that
unremitting terror will ultimately bring its reward in
recognition and results. On the contrary, it is only the
recognition that a campaign of terror will put its exponents
beyond the pale of civilized discourse that will persuade
terrorists to seek other ways of gaining a hearing.
At the close of this century it is relevant to ask of
ourselves this question: do moral considerations any longer
inspire or motivate our actions, or have we been completely
overtaken by pragmatic considerations reflected in our
respective national interests, subjectively defined?
I would like, in this context, to make an observation.
We have all heard the familiar jibe that a diplomat is
someone who is paid to lie abroad for his country.
Indeed, foreign relations and foreign policy have always
had the reputation of being somewhat amoral, the object
being to secure some national advantage, with the
morality of the end, or of the means used to secure the
end, being relatively unimportant. But the consequences
of this approach for international relations have been
deplorable. The Charter of the United Nations commences
with these memorable words:
“We the peoples of the United Nations
determined to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,
in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations large
and small, and
“to establish conditions under which respect for
the obligations arising from treaties and other
sources of international law can be maintained, and
“to promote social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom”.
One has only to listen to these words to realize that
the 54 years that have elapsed since they were first stated
have brought serious disappointments. Not only has the
world experienced numerous wars, but nations and
peoples have experienced many kinds of immoral
pressures and intimidation. Social progress and better
standards of life in larger freedom have, for many
nations, been an ever-receding mirage. It is clear that
these noble aspirations need some backing, some
stiffening, in their implementation.
Some 2,500 years ago a great teacher was born in
Asia. He was born a prince. He renounced the world and
roamed the forests in search of truth until he received
enlightenment. Let me recall that Buddhism was first
established in the central plain of the River Ganges, just
south of the Himalayas. From that beginning, at one time
or another in the course of its history, the message of the
Enlightened One spread to large areas of India, Pakistan
and Afghanistan, to Sri Lanka, China and Japan, to
Indonesia, Korea, Laos and Viet Nam, and to Myanmar
and Thailand. I state this not with any sense of
triumphalism, but to note that this enormous expansion
29

took place in peace. No battles were fought, no cities
besieged and no crusades commenced to further the
expansion of Buddhism. And when, in accordance with the
Buddha's teaching that all things are impermanent, the tide
receded, no battles were fought, no cities besieged and no
crusades commenced to stem that tide. For all of us who
are concerned with statecraft, this holds a fundamental
lesson.
I would like to quote in this connection from the great
Buddhist Emperor Asoka, who, as the Assembly knows,
underwent a radical change of heart through contact with
the Dhamma. In his often-quoted thirteenth rock edict at
Kalsi, he proclaimed:
“And for the following purpose has this rescript on
morality been written, namely, in order that the sons
and grandsons who may be born to me should not
think that a fresh conquest ought to be made; that, if
a conquest does please them, they should take pleasure
in mercy and light punishments; and that they should
regard the conquest by morality as the only true
conquest”.
Not only the freedom of thought, but also the
tolerance allowed by the Buddha is astonishing to the
student of the history of religions. Asoka, following this
noble example of tolerance and understanding, honoured
and supported all other religions in his vast empire.
The Buddha was just as clear on politics, war and
peace. It is well-known that Buddhism advocates and
preaches non-violence and peace as its universal message
and does not approve of any kind of violence or destruction
of life. According to Buddhism, there is nothing that can be
called a “just war”, which is only a false term coined and
put into circulation to justify and excuse hatred, cruelty,
violence and massacre. Who decides what is just or unjust?
The mighty and the victorious are “just” and the weak and
the defeated are “unjust”. Buddhism does not accept this
position.
As the Buddha says:
“The victor breeds hatred and the defeated lies down
in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat
is happy and peaceful”.
The only conquest that brings peace and happiness is self-
conquest:
“One may conquer millions in battle, but he who
conquers himself — only one — is the greatest of
the conquerors.”
Buddhist philosophy contains much more of
relevance to statesmen. In the past decade the observance
of human rights has been a source of great concern and
debate in international forums. In this connection, I would
like to quote the words of a scholar who has examined
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article by
article, from a Buddhist perspective. He said:
“The importance of this Declaration as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all
nations is now acknowledged everywhere. From the
religious angle, it is possible to state that in this
Declaration lie enshrined certain values and norms
emphasized by the major religions of the world.
Though not directly expressed, the basic principles
of the Declaration are supported and reinforced by
these religious traditions, and among them the
contribution of the Buddhist tradition, to say the
least, is quite outstanding”.
Today the teachings of the Buddha are studied and
practised worldwide, and nowhere more avidly than in the
West. It is said that there are over 150 million known
adherents of Buddhism in the world today. But if one
took into account the vast uncounted numbers of those
who practise Buddhism, that figure would be immensely
higher.
Allow me, therefore, to suggest to this Assembly
that as the third millennium of human history opens it
would be fitting to recall the immense contribution to the
understanding of the human condition that the teachings
of the Buddha made 2,500 years ago. I suggest further
that it would be appropriate to honour the Buddha by
declaring that Wesak, the sacred day for Buddhists the
world over, be observed as a special day by the United
Nations. Wesak marks the three most important events in
the life of the Buddha: his birth, his attainment of
enlightenment and his passing away, all occurring on the
full-moon day of the month of May. This was the
recommendation made by an international Buddhist
conference held in Colombo last November and attended
by delegates from 26 countries. With the permission of
the President, a draft resolution to this effect, sponsored
by a number of countries, will be introduced in the
General Assembly at its current session. The Government
of Sri Lanka commends this draft resolution to the
attention of the General Assembly.
30


Please accept my
congratulations, Sir, on your election to the presidency of
the General Assembly at its current session. We are indeed
glad to have a distinguished statesman from Africa
presiding over important deliberations on global security
and development. I am sure that your personal attributes, as
well as your diplomatic skills, will ensure the success that
is expected from the Assembly. The delegation of Poland
will do its best to assist you in your important functions.
My compliments go also to the President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-third session, Mr. Didier Opertti of
Uruguay, for the outstanding commitment he demonstrated
during his presidency.
It is with satisfaction that we welcome in our midst
the new Members of the United Nations: the Republic of
Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga.
It was with the utmost attention that we listened to the
Secretary-General's introduction of his report on the work
of the Organization. His interesting and highly stimulating
ideas will guide us throughout the whole fifty-fourth session
of the General Assembly. May I assure the
Secretary-General of our deep respect and support for all
his endeavours.
In my statement today, I wish to focus on the three
issues which, in my view, are at the centre of discussions
within this Organization. These are, first, human
freedoms, and in particular the question of rethinking the
principle of national sovereignty and non-interference;
secondly, current challenges to the United Nations
Charter-based system of international security; and
thirdly, coping with contradictions of globalization
through better international cooperation.
We have recently been witnessing new, painful
manifestations of ethnic hatred in Kosovo. Armed clashes
have again shaken the north Caucasus. East Timor is
another example of intolerance and the folly of violence.
We pay homage to the victims of this violence. But the
people in all the crisis-stricken areas expect more from us
than just words of sympathy.
We should pose ourselves some questions: could
these new outbursts of conflict have been prevented? Is
there a political will to head them off in the future? If the
answer is positive, then what should be done to translate
our political commitment into action in a concerted and
effective way? How should the system of international
relations be improved to give people the hope that they
will not be left defenceless in the face of genocide and
persecution?
The United Nations Charter-based system of
international security was born of the lessons of a
devastating world war which started with blatant
violations of sovereignty of States. To address this reality,
the system of international law and institutions was
rightly geared to give those nations a sense of security
and to prevent inter-State conflict. Most of today's
conflicts, however, are of an intra-State nature. They stem
from human rights abuses, social tensions or the collapse
of State structures. Can we tackle the new challenges with
existing concepts and notions only?
We have come to understand that absolute
sovereignty and total non-interference are no longer
tenable. There is not, and there cannot be, a sovereign
right to ethnic cleansing and genocide. We have learned
that what should not be repeated is the unacceptable
inaction which occurred in the past, such as in the
Rwandan crisis. Rwanda demonstrates what Kosovo might
have become had we not intervened in 1999. Kosovo
demonstrates what Rwanda might have been had we
intervened in 1994. The burden of responsibility is
enormous, the lesson clear.
5

At the same time, we should follow the principle that
our responsibility is the same for all ethnic groups. In
Kosovo the ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbs has
been stopped and reversed, but now we witness that the
presence of Serbs and Roma in Kosovo is under threat.
In this decade the international community has through
its actions — recently in Kosovo and in East Timor —
recognized the universal political and moral imperative to
act in order to stop gross and systematic violations of
human rights.
This recognition, setting aside the distinction between
inter- and intra-State conflicts, reflects the spirit of the
Charter of the United Nations.
Indeed, the central figure of the system of the United
Nations must be the human being — his or her right to a
peaceful life, to personal freedom, to a decent existence and
dignity. When human life and freedoms are assailed and
individual rights brutally violated, then we must not remain
indifferent and unconcerned: we cannot stand idle.
The imperative to act raises the question of the right
to act. We have recognized that the walls of sovereignty
cannot be used to conceal and legitimize the abuse of
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Sovereignty
cannot mean impunity for genocide and human rights
abuses.
Let us all remember that it remains one of the
fundamental objectives of the United Nations
“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal
rights of men and women and of nations large and
small”.
The primacy of the human person and human rights,
however, has to be adequately reflected in the application
of international law. This is not an easy task, first, because
there are still too many cases where behind hypocritical
lip-service to human rights there exist practices of curbing
and limiting those rights for the sake of preserving political
power; secondly, because the legal framework of
intervention, which should ensure the possibility of quick
and effective action, is too often distorted by selective and
subjective interpretations.
On the one hand, the banner of humanitarian
intervention should not be used as a pretext for imposing
political control and domination from the outside. We want
to make the walls of sovereignty surmountable, but not
for all purposes. On the other hand, the principle of
humanitarian intervention has to be fairly and consistently
applied to avoid double standards.
The development of international law should thus
uphold the basic truth that a sustainable, lasting and
secure order in international relations can be built only on
the freedom of the human being.
The principle of solidarity in international relations
should grow in importance, since it also provides the key
to the effectiveness of the mission of the United Nations.
Acting for universal observance of human rights
while preserving the necessary content of the notion of
sovereignty raises the question of the best strategies for
humanitarian intervention. We have but to agree that
intervention by force is an instrument of last resort. What
is preferable is an early and cooperative engagement to
correct the practices that give rise to concern. There is no
doubt that armed intervention is a sign of the failure of
cooperative methods.
We support wholeheartedly the efforts to foster a
new culture of prevention. The basis for this philosophy
should be the universal recognition that international
commitments undertaken by States in the field of human
rights are matters of direct and legitimate concern to other
States as well, before their abuse degenerates into a threat
to international peace and security. Human rights do not
belong exclusively to the internal affairs of States.
The present session of the General Assembly will
lead us into the year 2000. Let this symbolic date inspire
us to reflect upon the mission of the United Nations, to
make the millennium summit a truly meaningful event.
On the eve of the next millennium, the world still needs
the United Nations, while the United Nations needs a new
vision. Faced with new and more demanding challenges,
we are of the opinion that the solutions to them require
joint and concerted actions by the whole community of
States. The United Nations needs a reinforced
commitment by its Member States to the purposes and
principles enshrined in the Charter.
Let us try to find new strength for the Organization
by reaching back to the intellectual and normative origins
of the United Nations. Contrary to some assertions, we
believe that the Charter is not outdated in its basic
message. What it needs is a new, fresh and visionary
reading in the context of new international realities and
6

challenges. For example, with respect to Chapter VIII of
the Charter, we note that many of today's conflicts are local
in nature. It is for this reason that the relationship between
the United Nations and regional security needs to be further
explored.
Those actors who are closer to events and have a
larger stake in regional stability might be the ones who
would be willing to react more promptly and with greater
determination. This is why Poland supports increased
responsibility of regional organizations for conflict
prevention and crisis management. In regions where such
organizations exist and have the necessary potential, they
should be involved more actively in solving substantial
problems. One possible example of how to use them
constructively is the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
Thus, the key to effective use of the principle of
subsidiarity is closer political and operational cooperation
between the Security Council and regional organizations.
A debate on United Nations reform has been going on
for a number of years. The fiftieth anniversary of the
Organization stimulated the discussion, which resulted in a
universal understanding of the need for changes. Many of
those changes have already been implemented, thanks to the
tireless efforts of the Secretary-General. This process
should, however, be deepened and accelerated. The Security
Council offers a case in point.
The Security Council, upon which primary
responsibility has been conferred for the maintenance of
international peace and security, occasionally finds it
difficult to act in situations of inter-State or local armed
conflicts, even when those situations have a dangerous
spillover potential. Whether for reasons of broad ideological
motivations or narrow national interests, members can block
vitally needed decisions, and adversely affect the security
of certain regions. How are we to eliminate situations in
which the Security Council is prevented from taking up its
responsibilities? How are we to increase the effectiveness
of the Security Council, combining effectiveness with
enhanced representativeness? Reform of the Security
Council is long overdue: let us undertake a decisive effort
to make it a reality. Let us think anew of how to strengthen
the authority of the Council and preclude the possibility that
its decisions will be ignored or misimplemented by
individual States.
(spoke in French)
A few weeks ago, two young Africans froze to death
on their flight between Conakry and Brussels. They had
stowed away in the landing gear of the aircraft. They left
behind a moving appeal addressed to the people and
politicians in charge in Europe that has already been
quoted in this Hall. In view of the special nature of that
appeal, I should once again like to quote from it. They
wrote:
“Help us. ... We are suffering enormously in Africa.
... We have war, disease and we lack food. ... We
wish to be educated and we ask you to help us so
that we can study and be, in Africa, just the same as
you are”.
There is no more eloquent appeal to people's hearts and
consciences than those words of despair written by
children.
We must find the right solutions to the social and
economic failures, to the threats and to the lack of
prospects that people and societies face and consider the
urgent need to change the present framework of
international cooperation. Frustration and the lack of
social action cause conflict and a lack of stability. We
must think about how to integrate our social and
economic programmes with the general imperative of the
new culture of prevention.
Poland is prepared to participate in these efforts, the
aim of which is to build a world based on these
principles. However, our resources are limited. Our
country is only just emerging from a period of major
economic crisis caused by the communist system and its
centralized planning, with its waste and bad management.
Even so, we are now creating a complex and effective
system of cooperation for development that will
demonstrate our commitment in poverty eradication
activities. At the same time, we are prepared to share with
other countries the development experience we ourselves
have acquired during the process of reform of our
political and economic systems over the last 10 years of
transformation.
Globalization must become a process with a human
face. Certain basic principles must be better integrated
into the development machinery: specifically, solidarity;
combating marginalization; responsibility; and equal
opportunity. Combating marginalization: that of the least
developed countries, which do not yet enjoy the benefits
7

of globalization. Responsibility: that of Governments in
implementing policies of good governance, in respecting
human rights and in being aware that the well-being of all
people everywhere is just as important as the well-being of
their own nations. Equal opportunity: for the poorest, and
those who are still sidelined by society. And solidarity: in
facing our common challenges — terrorism, organized
crime, environmental threats, natural disasters, AIDS —
together.
Unfortunately, we still have much left to do before we
attain these goals. The 1999 United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report provides
fresh, shocking evidence of social breakdown and threats to
human security. The challenges I have just mentioned are
just part of a more universal question: how can we respond
to the new realities of the world? Global policies have not
been fully adapted to cover the increasing number of
complicated and contradictory phenomena that cannot be
tackled with traditional diplomatic instruments. The process
of designing policies is still basically the job of individual
nations, whereas the challenges we are facing require
creative cooperation at the global level. It is for this reason
that, Governments must further integrate the idea of
international cooperation into their national policies, while
avoiding the temptation of authoritarianism. This, however,
highlights the urgent need to revise and strengthen our
institutional arrangements regarding the design of global
policy, particularly with regard to the most complex
problems of trade, finance and the environment.
International cooperation must be more open to other
actors in civil society by reflecting the rich network of
relationships. While several countries are re-evaluating their
national policies, democratizing their societies, privatizing
their national economies and decentralizing economic and
political power, at the international level we are, broadly
speaking, still confining ourselves to conventional
intergovernmental actions. The United Nations must
promote active international cooperation whereby
governments and the various sectors of civil society act
together towards common goals.
In this connection, we welcome the “Partners for
Development” initiative of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD). By breaking from normal practice, this will
allow more active participation by the public and private
sectors and by representatives of government and the
business and intellectual worlds in resolving various
complex development problems.
(spoke in English)
As someone who has witnessed the atrocities but
also the tremendous progress that the twentieth century
has brought us, I look towards the coming century with
much optimism. This optimism is justified first and
foremost by the liberation of nations and peoples, the
wave of democratization, the market reforms all over the
world and the universal understanding of human rights
ideals. Fewer people live in constant fear of arbitrary
arrest, torture or worse. I also look towards the coming
century with hope because I see the predominant will to
consolidate those recent achievements.


Mr. President, I would
like to congratulate you as you take on the honour and
responsibility of leading the Assembly at its fifty-fourth
session. Allow me to express our deep appreciation to His
Excellency Minister Didier Opertti, who led us last year
with admirable efficiency, insight and, on occasion, good
humour. I take this opportunity also to commend the
Secretary-General for his dedication and inspiring
leadership in the service of our Organization.
I would also like to welcome Presidents Teburoro
Tito, Rene Harris and King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, their
delegations and the people of Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga,
all fellow members of the Asia-Pacific family, to the
United Nations. Their membership in our Organization
should further bolster the global consensus on peace and
progress in the world.
Almost a decade ago the cold war ended and we are
today at the doorstep of a new century. Over those years,
we achieved much as individual nations and as Members
of this Organization. Yet, our collective search for peace
and progress for all continues. After many years of
eloquent debates, after hearing many persuasive proposals
and formulations, how well indeed have we mastered the
language of peace. But the wars and strife that afflict our
world, even as we speak, show that we have neither fully
learned nor lived the ways of peace. As at its founding,
our Organization is faced with the dire spectre of
countless multitudes living in utter dread and misery.
The much-touted new global order, where nations
live in harmony and peace, where growth and sustainable
development are rights and not privileges and where
justice rules and human rights are upheld remains a
promise. We encounter newer threats to the peace, and
old threats are re-emerging. Poverty stalks many lands.
Far too many people have their human rights ignored or
violated. Our very Earth protests decades of unbridled
abuse.
One of the clear victors at the end of the cold war
was the free market. For most of our lives, the assault
upon the very idea and practice of the free market came
from an ideology. Today, even that ideology embraces the
methods, if not the spirit, of the free market. It now
seems that the growing reach of the free market, or
9

globalization, is held back only by our inability to adapt to
it fast enough.
For so many years, East Asia was admired for its
success with globalization. The so-called East Asian miracle
was little more than our region’s economic response to it.
Our fast growth doubled our incomes and moved tens of
millions of our people out of poverty. Up until July 1997,
we thought all was well.
Now we know better; we have learned our lessons.
Our difficulties could have been less severe or avoided with
better public and corporate governance, with better
management of financial systems, with greater transparency
and accountability; in other words, with greater openness,
which is the heart and spirit of the free market or any truly
free system.
Happily, the crisis did not destroy the conditions
underpinning East Asia’s growth formula of
outward-oriented industrialization. A propensity for high
savings, abundant highly educated human resources, higher
productivity and economic reform policies remain.
Today, East Asia is on the road to recovery. Consumer
confidence is rising. Exports are booming. Inflation has
been tamed. Investors are coming back. Japan, the Republic
of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia are all growing
again. The Philippine economy will grow by more than 3
percent this year and over 5 percent next year. Yet, there is
no retreat on our core reform agenda. Economic
restructurings continue. Greater economic integration goes
on. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
countries, for instance, took extraordinary steps to
underscore their commitment to free trade and investment.
During its Hanoi summit last year, ASEAN resolved to
accelerate, not retard, the establishment of the ASEAN free
trade area to the year 2002. We are accelerating the
implementation of the ASEAN Investment Area and
ASEAN Industrial Cooperation schemes. We have also
moved towards greater financial cooperation by establishing
at the Asian Development Bank a regional economic
monitoring and surveillance mechanism. It should
encourage transparency, institute better coordination of
economic policies and help ward off future financial crises.
However, internal reforms cannot be enough. The
crisis also exposed the weaknesses lurking in the
international system. Realizing early on that the
phenomenon of globalization should be addressed
multilaterally, the United Nations has sought the
cooperation of other multilateral organizations to strengthen
normative, legal and institutional frameworks in the hope
that the global economy can be managed more effectively
and, perhaps more importantly, more equitably. For the
yawning gap between poor and rich nations continues to
widen, and the pace and level of development of countries
are, alas, more uneven.
In a fast-globalizing and interdependent world,
augmenting the ability of developing countries to
participate fully in the global economy is the win-win
solution for all. Insecure market access, high levels of
protection and support of agriculture in industrialized
countries and the continued high tariffs on industrial
products from developing countries obviate greater
progress for all.
The international trading system must adopt a new
paradigm in which sustainable development should be the
central theme. The World Trade Organization Ministerial
Conference to be held in Seattle late this year should be
not only an opportunity to launch a new round of
multilateral trade negotiations. It should also be an
occasion to imbue the process with a sense of direction
that responds to the development needs of developing
countries.
The global financial architecture must be
strengthened. There is urgent need, as the Committee for
Development Policy pointed out in its 1998 report to the
Economic and Social Council, for the coherent
development and effective monitoring of international
standards and codes of conduct for private financial
management and capital flows. There is also need to curb
destructive competition and inconsistency in national
regulatory frameworks.
More and more, countries and regions need to reach
out to one another in the spirit of cooperation and
partnership for development. The ten-year-old
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, or APEC, is
founded on this conviction. So is the much younger
Asia-Europe Meeting, or ASEM. And it heartens us that
the East Asia-Latin America Forum, having recently taken
its first steps, may soon join in the more sustained and
structured effort to link up for global progress. The
Philippines anticipates a similar region-to-region initiative
with Africa and will contribute its utmost to any such
initiative.
From a historical perspective, we are still at the very
early stage of globalization. With globalization having the
potential to grow exponentially, as do the revolutions in
10

technology and information that fuel it, this early stage is
perhaps the most critical one. Only earnest international
cooperation can ensure that this process does not lead to the
marginalization of any nation.
But, as our recent experience in East Asia shows,
economic progress alone cannot and does not engender the
optimal well-being of nations or peoples. Progress in
ensuring political stability and security should accompany
growth. Any asymmetry in the pace, breadth and depth of
change in these facets of the political economy is a seed of
future instability. Moreover, just as our economic prospects
are determined by our participation in the global economy,
our future peace and security will depend not only on our
internal resilience, but also on the active cooperation of
others.
In East Asia the most urgent undertaking for ensuring
peace is the reconfiguration of the strategic security
structure in the region. The holes left gaping by the end of
the cold war must be filled; the new parameters of the
regional security equation must be defined. The situation in
the Taiwan Strait is a concern to us all. So are the issues of
missile development in the Korean peninsula and nuclear
development and uneasy peace in South Asia.
The South China Sea remains a potential flashpoint.
We are hopeful that, in addition to measures advancing
regional economic and financial cooperation, a regional
code of conduct in the South China Sea can be adopted at
the summit of leaders of ASEAN, China, Japan and the
Republic of Korea that we are hosting in Manila in
November.
East Asia has clearly not yet settled all its great issues
of war and peace. But we are trying hard and succeeding in
some important ways. At the sixth ASEAN Regional
Forum — the only forum on security that includes all the
major Powers with a stake in our region — we agreed to
draft rules of procedure by which preventive diplomacy
could bolster and complement regional confidence-building
measures. Last December we agreed to move closer to the
full activation of the ASEAN High Council and the dispute
settlement mechanisms mandated by the Treaty of Amity
and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.
The 5 May 1999 Agreement on East Timor and the
free, fair and orderly conduct of the 30 August
consultations there are truly significant developments for
lasting peace in our region. For the Philippines, it is of the
utmost importance that the chaos there be quickly resolved
and the horrendous human suffering be stanched. We
therefore welcome Indonesia’s decision to invite the
assistance of the United Nations and of a multinational
force, and its creation of a national commission of inquiry
to investigate and bring to justice persons responsible for
the atrocities and human rights violations in East Timor.
We also commend the Secretary-General and the
neighbouring and other countries for responding quickly
to restore order and facilitate humanitarian relief in East
Timor. As a fraternal neighbour of the peoples of
Indonesia and East Timor, we will contribute all we can
to ameliorate the humanitarian situation and put back on
track a peaceful transition.
Elsewhere, the Sharm el-Sheikh Agreement is a
positive development for the Middle East peace process.
We are also heartened by the agreements reached recently
in Sierra Leone and the Congo, and between Eritrea and
Ethiopia. We hope that the resolution of the immediate
crisis in Kosovo will soon create the conditions conducive
to the establishment of lasting peace there.
It is true that we have avoided major inter-State
conflicts of late, and that States are more willing to
resolve disputes peacefully. But the continuing tensions in
various regions of the world could still draw nations into
conflict and divert attention and resources away from
development. For the Philippines, regional cooperation
provides a key to managing potential and actual conflict
situations. We have seen this in the efforts of the ASEAN
troika, the United Nations and the international
community to restore political stability in Cambodia, and
in the dispatch of a multinational force to East Timor
with authorization from the Security Council and upon the
invitation of the Indonesian Government.
We agree with the Secretary-General that it is
necessary and desirable to provide support for regional
and subregional arrangements and initiatives on matters of
international peace and security. The United Nations,
lacking the capacity, resources and expertise to address all
issues unique to each region of the world, should
complement rather than supplant regional peace efforts.
This, however, will require significant investment
from all of us. In the first instance, we need to invest a
lot of goodwill and build trust in one another so that
clearer criteria and a more predictable basis can guide
Security Council authorization for all types of peace
missions. We realize that no two situations are the same,
but inaction due to stalemates in the Council, in the face
of serious threats to peace and human life, threatens the

credibility, legitimacy and future effectiveness of our
Organization.
Secondly, the Organization and its Member States
need to invest in practical steps that can be taken in the
areas of training assistance, joint peacekeeping exercises,
greater participation in standby arrangements, partnerships
between countries whose contingents require equipment
support and those able to provide it, and closer cooperation
between the United Nations and regional organizations.
And thirdly, perhaps more important, we need to
invest our work and way of thinking with greater flexibility
and innovation. The nature of conflict has changed. Crises
and humanitarian situations now involve many more actors,
from Governments and international organizations to non-
State players. And their effects, just like their causes, are
more complex and far-reaching.
Let us face it, much of what was considered before as
the internal affairs of a State is not so any more — or ever.
Humanity is indivisible. Peace is indivisible.
State sovereignty is important; it will always be. So is
individual sovereignty. That the redefinition of one should
coincide with the renewed consciousness of the other is, to
my delegation, not an accident. These developments need
not even be seen as parallel, as in they do not meet; for in
truth, they converge.
But we agree with the Secretary-General that the more
important question is how the United Nations — the only
truly universal, if imperfect, arm of the international
community — is to respond to the political, human rights
and humanitarian crises affecting so much of the world. We
have to be more innovative in our approaches to problems
relating to massive and systematic human rights violations.
We agree that empowering the United Nations enough to
match its Charter mandates in today’s and tomorrow’s
world requires that we, the Member States, update our
concept of national interest.
Last year, before this Assembly, I articulated
Philippine policy, thus:
“Like all other States, the Philippines pursues
foreign policy to promote national security and
development. But we view national security beyond
the traditional concerns of sovereignty and territorial
integrity. For in a global regime characterized by
evolving multipolarity of political and military power
and by growing economic and financial
interdependence, with all their attendant
opportunities and risks, my nation’s peace and
prosperity increasingly depend on stability and
growth abroad. As President Estrada has said: Our
way of life, our fundamental values and our
institutions can flourish and find true expression
only if we enjoy political stability, economic
solidarity, socio-cultural cohesion, moral consensus
and ecological balance, at home and with our
partners in the world. Our national security and
development” [or in short, our national interest]
“demand that we actively advance the internationally
shared goals of freedom, openness, peace, prosperity
and justice.” (A/53/PV.17, p.6)
After the events of the last year, we are more
convinced that the collective interest, our common
interest, is my country’s national interest.
The need to reform the United Nations is our
common interest. Reforms should not only seek to make
the United Nations more efficient; they should make it
truly responsive to the new demands of international
peace, security and development.
The Security Council, with its wide mandate and
leadership role, should be at the centre of change and
reform itself. It should be truly representative, democratic,
transparent and accountable. The use of the veto should
be rationalized.
The day may come when we shall have achieved
consensus on the reforms that we wish for our
Organization. The day may also come — and soon I
hope — that the financial morass our Organization is in
will have passed.
But while these are critical to the very survival of
the United Nations, the continued existence of our
Organization would be far more meaningful if we could
invest it with a new openness and greater trust. The
Philippines believes that to achieve this, we must start at
home, in our own regions. We must, in appropriate
circumstances, be more open to hearing the views of
others and offering our own, even on issues deemed too
controversial. A new openness would reflect the boldness
with which we should renew the promise of a new era.
The United Nations proved its great worth in this
century. Its continued success in the next will depend
entirely on us, on the goals we hope to achieve with it, on
12

what we are willing to invest in it. After all, we are the
United Nations.


May I first congratulate you, Mr.
President, on your election to this responsible position. I am
sure that your vast knowledge and experience are a
guarantee of the success of this session.
I avail myself of this opportunity to express my most
sincere congratulations also to the Secretary-General, Mr.
Kofi Annan, for his contribution to strengthening the role
of the United Nations in line with the challenges of the
modern world.
I am going to spare the Assembly the review of this
year's international developments that it probably
anticipated, because I come from a region that has
generated enough bad news and is still the focus of world
attention.
Some of the developments in our region were not
the result of human will. The earthquakes in Turkey and
Greece, which claimed tens of thousands of victims,
shook the world. Regrettably, man-made disasters have
taken a high toll on our region. The war in Kosovo, the
fourth in a row in the former Yugoslavia, has left in its
wake a comparable trail of tragedies.
Now that the war is over, there are two things we
must do: as soon as possible, repair the damage and
alleviate the trauma it has inflicted, and build an
infrastructure of security and prosperity that precludes any
future repetition of such tragic events.
The international community has in the past set itself
similar ambitious tasks. This time, I hope, the experience
it has gained has reached the critical mass needed for the
achievement of lasting peace settlements in conflict areas.
The consequences of the Kosovo crisis have spilled
over the borders of the region. That is why I find it
worthwhile to share with the Assembly some conclusions
about what was, hopefully, the last war in the Balkans.
With the adoption of Security Council resolution
1244 (1999), the world community has endorsed the
political end of the system established by the cold war.
That resolution reflected the new international status quo
and the understanding that has grown during the past 10
years of the importance of individual security.

Today, the rights and dignity of the human individual,
civil freedoms and the international rule of law override
even the sovereignty of States. This calls for a new
responsibility on the part of the international community for
their protection. The resolution also showed the
commitment of Security Council members to international
stability.
Paradoxical as it may sound, the Kosovo crisis has
served as a catalyst of post-bipolar relations and of a new
type of political dialogue among States. Significantly, for
the first time since the Second World War, four permanent
Security Council members are participating in one force —
KFOR. Furthermore, they have been involved in
peacekeeping operations — something that would have
been unthinkable 10 years ago.
The Kosovo crisis has also highlighted the need for
change within the United Nations system itself. For
example, the world Organization is in serious need of a
mechanism for compensating neighbouring States for
damage caused by international intervention or sanctions. I
raise this issue not only because of the losses sustained by
my country during the past eight years from the embargo
against Iraq and because of the military conflicts in the
former Yugoslavia, but also because this will increase the
efficiency and boost the image of the United Nations. It
will certainly improve the credibility of United Nations-led
operations and provide better motivation for individual
countries to participate.
On the other hand, the crisis in Kosovo promoted a
new type of relations among international organizations in
respect of the protection of human rights. As a result of the
crisis, a new kind of interface has been born between the
United Nations and the regional organizations in Europe,
such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
the European Union and regional initiatives such as the
Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe. This has
strengthened the role of the United Nations on that
continent.
Today, the Balkan people expect the international
community to show the same commitment to the future of
the region as it did during the crisis. Threats to peace and
security should cease to be the only international mobilizing
factor, and we must act towards this end.
I am convinced that the developments in the former
Yugoslavia have not been due to some peculiar Balkan
mentality or to any historic predestination. Half a century
ago, Western Europe was embroiled in wars that were no
less bloody. The difference is that after the Second World
War the nations of Western Europe were rescued at the
same time from fascism and communism. This helped
them attain a democratic and economic homogeneity that,
in turn, enabled victors and vanquished alike to set aside
their differences and build their present prosperity while
respecting human rights and protecting their national
identity.
Unfortunately, a different lot fell to the countries of
South-Eastern Europe after the Second World War. States
like Greece and Turkey, both NATO members, preserved
and built up their potential for liberal-democratic
development and a free market, and the rest of the States
in the region were forced to become a part of the Soviet
communist system.
Today, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the
Balkans still lack democratic homogeneity. This has been
a source of tensions, which, translated into ethnic hatred,
are the favoured tool of any totalitarian regime attempting
to cling to power. But I am sure it is wrong to apply a
common denominator to the whole region. Today
Bulgaria, as well as most of the Balkan States, is a
country with a working democracy, a free market
economy and the rule of law.
An earlier democratic homogenization of South-
Eastern Europe can be achieved only if the vision for our
countries' integration with the rest of the European States
is shared by both the Balkan nations and the people of
Western Europe. Efforts and perseverance to this end are
the safest guarantee for converting the whole of Europe
into a continent of peace, stability and prosperity.
This common European vision fully applies to the
future Yugoslavia. There is hardly any country that has a
higher stake in Yugoslavia's earliest possible integration
in the family of democratic Balkan States than Bulgaria.
I cannot but share here the concern of the world
community at the continuing ethnic tensions in Kosovo,
which distance us from the desired state of peace and
ethnic tolerance. Six months ago I firmly supported
NATO's operation, designed to end ethnic violence
against the Albanian population in Kosovo. Today, just as
firmly, I oppose ethnic violence against the Serb
population in that province.
The Balkans have paid a high price for peace in
Kosovo. Today the region needs direct assistance for its
reconstruction. The priority beneficiaries should clearly be
2

the hardest-hit countries and areas. Nonetheless, rather than
discussing figures and reparations, I believe it would be
more productive for both the Balkans and the world to
adopt a clear vision for the future of South-Eastern Europe.
This future has no alternative but the transformation of the
Balkans into an integral part of a united Europe of the next
century.
The General Assembly is the right forum to discuss
the issue of how this can be done. The path leads through
the direct rehabilitation and reconstruction of the
Balkans — the best form of assistance for our region being
“help for self-help”. The Stability Pact for South-Eastern
Europe can provide the necessary framework.
We are convinced that the economic prosperity of the
region is a vital condition for achieving political stability.
We need infrastructure and strategic investment that
generate and guarantee more security than any political
dialogue. We need the promotion of trade and a maximum
involvement of the economic potential of our countries in
the reconstruction effort. This will encourage them to
cooperate with each other, while opening up the region and
transforming it into a natural, organic part of Europe, rather
than isolating it.
The crisis in Kosovo will be long over before its
effects, such as the blockage of the Danube to shipping,
have been eliminated. The international waterway should
not become a new line of conflict; we should help it play
its natural role of a link rather than allow it to act as a
dividing line across Europe. The issue I am raising at this
point concerns both the economic damage that has been
caused and the very principles of the European architecture
since the end of the crisis in Kosovo.
The location of the Balkans at a crossroads has been
a curse for its people in the past; in today's globalized
world, it is our greatest blessing. The Balkans should serve
as a link between Western Europe and Central Asia, the
Caucasus and the Caspian Sea. It is one of the most
promising regions for the coming century. A case in point
is the restoration of the historic silk road, which crosses the
whole of Asia and links it to Europe. Restoration will entail
huge infrastructure projects and investment which in turn
could improve the quality of life of whole nations and
regions.
The Balkan nations have already demonstrated a
willingness to adopt a new approach in their relations with
one another. The various forms of aid which neighbouring
States generously offered each other in response to the
recent natural disasters were a positive new sign. Another
significant fact is the formation of the multinational peace
force for South-Eastern Europe, staffed jointly by
countries that were enemies earlier this century, including
during the cold war. It is an honour for my country that
the first headquarters of that force is based in Bulgaria.
I cannot fail to mention here the success of the
trilateral initiatives between Bulgaria, Romania and
Greece and between Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey for
cooperation in combating organized crime and illegal
drugs and arms trafficking.
The Kosovo crisis calls for a contemporary rereading
of the chronicles of the Balkan wars by all the Balkan
peoples: the modern perspective will reveal to them that
those wars have done no country in the region any good.
The new task facing the political elite is to translate these
lessons of history into a lasting commitment to peace and
cooperation. Having paid such a high price in suffering
and fear, it would be a pity if we failed to learn from our
experience.
In conclusion, I reiterate my country's willingness to
cooperate with and contribute actively to the joint efforts
of all Member States to streamline the United Nations, an
Organization with a key role in maintaining international
peace and security and achieving the objectives of
sustainable development in the coming century.


It is just over half a
century since the then British Prime Minister, Clement
Attlee, presented the Charter of the United Nations to our
Parliament. He told our Parliament:
“We are seeking not merely good relations
between nations but between the human beings
within nations”.
The concept he saw expressed in the Charter of the United
Nations was revolutionary. That responsibility for the
security, freedom and development of people does not
belong solely to each State acting individually, but to all
nations of the world acting as a united body.
Over the past 50 years, the United Nations has done
much to discharge that responsibility. The United Nations
and its agencies have led programmes around the world that
have released the potential of individual human beings on
every continent. We have helped double the literacy rate
among women in developing countries. We have helped
immunize 80 per cent of the world's children against some
of the most lethal diseases. We have established the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the benchmark
for freedom for individuals. And this General Assembly
played a leading role in insisting on equal democratic
rights, regardless of race, and in forcing an end to
apartheid. Today the United Nations provides shelter and
sanctuary to refugees in every corner of the world.
As we meet this week, United Nations agencies
provide homes, food, welfare, health and education to 19
million refugees — more than the population of most
Member States. We should take pride in these
achievements, because it will help give us the confidence
to tackle the challenges that remain.
But we must also be frank about where we have
failed. We have failed to deliver peace to many of the
peoples of the world. We have not realized the vision of
our founders, of nations and peoples within them living
in peace with each other. We have averted world war. But
we have not averted a world with too much war.
That is why I want to support the excellent opening
address by our Secretary-General by focusing my remarks
also on what we must do if we are to replace failure to
halt war with success in preventing conflict. The
harrowing scenes we have witnessed this past year from
Kosovo, from Sierra Leone, from East Timor and too
many other places underline the urgency of improving our
performance in preventing conflicts and also in stopping
them once they have started.
I propose five priority areas for action. First, we
must tackle the root causes of conflict, starting with the
poverty that breeds it. War is becoming a poor man's
burden. In the modern world, wealthy nations no longer
experience the trauma of conflict on their soil. The
soundest basis for peace is prosperity, and the best way
we can prevent conflict is by promoting sustainable
development. The forthcoming Millennium Assembly
must make a reality of the commitment to halving the
proportion of people in extreme poverty and reducing the
number of nations in heavy debt.
Secondly, we must promote human rights and good
governance. Development of a nation will be more rapid
where people have the right to develop their full potential.
Conflict is more likely where governments rule without
the consent of their people.
Thirdly, we must curb the supply of weapons that
fuel conflict. For decades, the United Nations, rightly, has
focused on halting the spread of weapons of mass
destruction. Yet in truth, in those same decades, the
weapons that have killed masses in conflicts have been
the most common of small arms. In Friday's debate in the
Security Council, we will have the opportunity to take
forward action to halt the illegal trade in small arms, to
promote regional moratoriums on small arms and to limit
arsenals of military firearms to legitimate Government
agencies.
34

Fourthly, we must stop the illegal trade in diamonds
and other precious commodities which pay for the small
arms — and all too often the mercenaries — which sustain
conflict. The markets for these commodities, especially the
market in diamonds, are small and tightly located in a few
centres. We must encourage cooperation with those who
manage those markets to cut off the supply of funds to
those who are promoting conflict.
Lastly, I strongly endorse the view expressed by our
Secretary-General this morning that we must counter the
culture of impunity. Those who break international
humanitarian law, from Kosovo to East Timor, must know
that they will be held to account by the international
community.
The international criminal tribunals have shown what
can be done. We must build on their work by getting a
permanent international criminal court up and running with
all speed.
But we will not always succeed in preventing conflict.
We need, therefore, to be better equipped to restore peace
when war breaks out. As my Prime Minister, Tony Blair,
said in Chicago earlier this year, working out the conditions
and identifying the circumstances when it is right in the
modern world to intervene is the most pressing problem in
foreign policy today. His speech demonstrated that Britain
is anxious to play its full part in that debate. Our starting
point is that our common interest in preserving the world
from major conflict is greater than our individual interests
as nations.
Globalization is the long and rather ugly term which
is used to describe how in today’s world we are
interdependent with each other rather than independent of
each other. We are bound together by our strengthening
links in trade and investment, in travel and communication.
What happens in one country can have a direct impact on
the prosperity and the security — even the climate — of
countries on the other side of the world.
And we are also bound together by the consequences
of conflict. In Britain 90 per cent of the heroin on the
streets of our big cities is grown in Afghanistan under
cover of the generation-long conflict in that land. In central
Africa, the upheavals of population sparked by the mass
genocide in Rwanda have destabilized the region and
caught up half a dozen countries in the conflicts that have
ensued. Across the countries of Europe there are now
several hundred thousands of citizens of the former
Yugoslavia who have fled to seek sanctuary from the
repeated conflicts there. Just as few nations can stand
alone in the modern world, there are now few major
conflicts which remain only an internal matter with no
impact on the rest of the world.
If we are to respond adequately when conflict
breaks out, then the United Nations needs to develop
three strengths — credibility, consensus and capacity.
If the United Nations is to have the credibility to
press the parties to a conflict to a solution, it must be
more representative of the modern world. A small
increase in the size of the Security Council would be a
modest price to pay for the big increase in its credibility
which would come from a more representative permanent
membership.
But greater credibility would be pointless without
consensus on when the authority of the United Nations
should be invoked. Intervention must always be a last
resort. We can all agree that the first responsibility for
reconciling internal conflict rests with the State in which
that conflict arises. But we also have a shared
responsibility to act when we are confronted with
genocide, mass displacement of people or major breaches
of humanitarian law. To know that such atrocities are
being committed and not to act against them is to make
us complicit in them. And to be passive in the face of
such events is to make it more likely that they will be
repeated.
Credibility, though, also requires us to demonstrate
not just the consensus, but also the capacity, to act. We
often hear demands that the United Nations should do
something. Let us be honest — the United Nations is
nothing more than the aggregate of its Member States.
The United Nations cannot do something except when we,
its Member States, are prepared to provide the means.
We need to ensure that the United Nations has a
sound financial base, which requires all of us to meet our
assessed contributions in full, on time. But we must also
ensure that when peacekeeping forces are required, they
are made available. Britain has signed a standby
agreement earmarking forces we are prepared in principle
to provide for emergency peacekeeping work. Such
agreements enable the United Nations to plan for
emergencies with greater confidence that we can rapidly
put in the field the right skills, with the necessary
equipment. A score of other Member States have signed
similar agreements. The more of us that do so, the greater
35

will be the capacity of the United Nations in brokering a
basis for peacekeeping deployment.
But in Kosovo we discovered that it was less difficult
to put together an armed force to end the military violence
than to assemble a United Nations police force to keep civil
order. Today, therefore, I can announce that Britain will
follow up our standby agreement with the United Nations
on troops with a similar agreement increasing the number
of United Kingdom police officers available for United
Nations troops. This will include a commitment to a rapid
response squad, ready for deployment at short notice when
it is urgently needed. We shall also be establishing with the
United Nations a flagship training course in Britain to train
police from around the world to play their part in our joint
missions.
I am conscious that the agenda I have set out is an
ambitious one. But, in all humility, I have to say that it is
less ambitious than the visionary programme set out half a
century ago by the founders of the United Nations. As our
Secretary-General said earlier this year, unless we can unite
around the aim of confronting massive human rights
violations, against crimes against humanity, then we will
betray the very ideals of our founders.
In the modern world in which we live — the modern
world of satellite communications — we know instantly
when such violations are taking place. We have the
resources and the mobility to move our assets quickly in an
emergency. Modern technology has made all of us each
other’s neighbours. We now need to match that technology
with an international doctrine that also reflects the modern
world. And it must be founded on the clear principle that
the only war we agree to wage is one in which our nations
are united in combating conflict.


Your brilliant election, Mr. President, to the presidency of
the General Assembly at this session pays tribute to your
personal merits and your eminent qualities as a diplomat,
and to your country, Namibia, a country that is to us a
symbol of the struggle against oppression. First of all, allow
me to address our most sincere and warm congratulations
to you. Your country and Burkina Faso share the same
ideals and values, and a similar vision of the future of
Africa and the world. Suffice it to say that we extend to
you in advance our willingness and cooperation for the
success of your mission.
We must also pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr.
Didier Opertti, who so brilliantly discharged his important
responsibilities during this particularly trying year. I pay
tribute as well to our Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan,
whose work at the helm of the United Nations deserves
our appreciation and our fullest support.
Finally, I would like to congratulate the three new
Members that have joined the great family of the United
Nations — Tonga, Nauru and Kiribati.
This session of the General Assembly — the last of
the century — is beginning at a time when recurring and
persistent inter-State and inter-ethnic conflict and hostility
are characteristic of the international scene.
The globalization of the international economy and
the liberalization of world trade appear to have worsened
the economic and social differences between peoples. The
lofty objectives of our Organization — the promotion of
peace, security, justice and equality — seem to be
receding into the distance.
We are faced with increasing challenges, which is
making the task of the United Nations more difficult. And
yet we sense that the coming millennium will be a time
of growth for our peoples, in particular those of the
developing countries.
The waning century threw down every possible
challenge, but it also gave rise to great hopes. It has been
one of the most productive as regards legal instruments
aimed at enhancing the protection and promotion of
human rights. Nevertheless, grave dangers emerged during
this period that came close to jeopardizing humankind's
very existence. The memory of the two great wars
remains very much alive.
It must be underscored that the United Nations —
born of the general upheaval of the post-war period and
charged with working towards peace and a genuine
collective security for our world — has accomplished a
great deal, with the assistance of regional or subregional
organizations such as the Organization of African Unity
(OAU), the Organization of American States, the
Association of South-East Asian Nations, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and so on.
But despite all these efforts, the quest for peace
remains an immense and difficult undertaking. On the
international scene, wars, conflicts and confrontations of
12

all stripes continue to rage, wiping out any progress made
in the field of development.
In the Middle East, the level of tension between the
parties remains very high, even though recent political
changes have given rise to hopes of a comprehensive
solution to the Palestinian question, particularly since the
signing of the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum on 4
September last.
In an international situation so fraught with conflict,
we can only rejoice at seeing the spectre of war, which had
seemed inevitable, recede from East Timor thanks to the
wisdom and realism of the parties to this painful conflict.
I cannot fail to mention the military intervention of the
NATO countries in Yugoslavia and more specifically in
Kosovo, an operation whose legitimacy was supposedly
based on the right of humanitarian intervention. But my
country, Burkina Faso, is among those that believe that
such an intervention should take place only on the basis of
a clear and precise mandate and under the supervision of
the United Nations.
Though the objective of this type of intervention —
protecting a victimized minority — may seem defensible,
the manner in which it was carried out is a cause for
concern because it represents a challenge to the United
Nations and to the basic norms of international law.
Burkina Faso is gratified that the United Nations has taken
up its proper role in the resolution of this conflict.
But Africa is undoubtedly the continent that has
suffered the most from these crises. Though peace has been
restored in Guinea-Bissau, and in Sierra Leone the Lomé
Agreement, signed on 7 July 1999 with the active
participation of Burkina Faso, has put an end to the gunfire,
we must continue tirelessly to strive to resolve the situation
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the Horn of
Africa and in Angola.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a solution
can be found if security issues, which remain the essential
concerns of the various States involved in the conflict, are
taken into consideration. Accordingly, Burkina Faso
considers that the Lusaka agreements must be accepted by
all of the parties if indeed they wish to give peace a
chance.
Turning to the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea,
President Blaise Compaoré, during his tenure as the head of
the high-level OAU delegation and in close cooperation
with the United Nations, made every effort to promote a
peaceful settlement of this conflict, in conformity with the
mandate he was entrusted with at Ouagadougou by the
thirty-fourth Summit of Heads of State or Government, in
June 1998.
Our efforts led to the acceptance by both parties of
the Ouagadougou framework agreement, and, at the
thirty-fifth OAU Summit, held in Algiers, of the
modalities for the implementation of that agreement. We
are convinced that President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the
current Chairman of the OAU, to whom we have passed
the torch, will strive to ensure a successful outcome to
this delicate situation. In doing so he will enjoy the
continuing and vigorous support of the OAU Secretary
General, Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, and the cooperation of
the United Nations and all of the States that have played
a very positive and discreet role in finding a pacific
solution to the conflict between these two brotherly
countries. To this end, he will require the cooperation of
both parties and the support of all, particularly the United
Nations.
The fratricidal conflict in Angola has lasted more
than two decades, despite all of the sanctions and
measures taken against Mr. Jonas Savimbi and his
movement, UNITA. Burkina Faso is convinced that, as in
other cases — particularly in Sierra Leone and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo — it is only through
a dialogue between the parties that a just and lasting
solution can be found.
It is clear that, because of their increasingly complex
and interrelated nature, the various conflicts I have
mentioned cannot be resolved in a just and lasting way
unless the efforts of all are conjoined. This includes not
only the parties to the conflict and the international
community — meaning the United Nations — but also
the regional and subregional organizations.
In this respect, we noted, throughout our mandate as
Chairman of the OAU, the determination and commitment
of this Organization fully to discharge its responsibilities,
as evidenced by the various initiatives it has undertaken.
We stand convinced that Africa has resolutely
considered the serious consequences these multiple
conflicts entail for the economic and human development
of its population. Accordingly, at the thirty-fifth OAU
Summit in Algiers, it took the courageous and historic
decision of declaring that the year 2000 would be a year
of peace and security throughout the continent.
13

Of course, we know full well that in order for that
objective to be attained, the support of the international
community is crucial, not only at the political level, where
its backing will be needed for the implementation of our
decisions and resolutions, but also at the equally important
level of logistics and material support, technical assistance
and humanitarian considerations.
But any peace is fragile that is not backed by genuine
disarmament. That is why we support all international
initiatives in this field, in particular the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
My country has joined in the fight against anti-
personnel mines by signing and ratifying the relevant
Convention. Burkina Faso is gratified at the growing
support of the international community for the initiative of
the Economic Community of West African States relating
to a moratorium on the production and transfer of light
weapons. Together with other members of the international
community, my country is also participating in
peacekeeping operations, in particular in the United Nations
Mission in the Central African Republic.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, it is
distressing to note that the world economy is still
dominated and controlled by a minority of States that
manipulate its rules and the way it operates in their own
interests and to the detriment of the interests of the great
majority — the countries that make up the South.
With regard to social development, poverty has
continued to increase in developing countries, where about
1.5 billion people — one quarter of the world's population
— are living on less than $1 per capita per day. Food
security is far from guaranteed in those countries, while in
the affluent countries food is destroyed on a huge scale in
order to stabilize prices. The scarcity of drinking water
supplies and medical services condemns a third of humanity
to a life expectancy of no more than 40 years. Illiteracy
greatly limits the access of the poorest to knowledge and,
by extension, to information about how their countries are
run. The most disadvantaged and vulnerable strata —
women, children and elderly people — do not fully enjoy
the benefits of a legal protection system.
At a more general level, there are unacceptable
disparities in international economic relations between the
industrialized and the developing countries. The latter are
becoming increasingly vulnerable because of the chronic
structural imbalance in trade with the developed countries.
Despite the decisions taken by the ministerial conferences
of the World Trade Organization, the integration of the
less advanced countries into the multilateral trading
system is still an issue, particularly with regard to the
special and differentiated treatment that should be granted
to those countries. The greatest challenge in the twenty-
first century will undoubtedly be the struggle against the
marginalization of the countries of the South.
The burden of debt remains a constant concern, too,
despite the initiative of the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries Debt Initiative and the important decisions
taken by the Group of Seven Summit in Cologne, which
I welcome.
In order to promote the genuine and lasting human
development to which all developing countries aspire, we
must work for greater justice and equity in international
trade, through the implementation of various measures,
including price stabilization and export guarantees for the
products of developing countries through the revaluation
of raw materials and the stabilization of export earnings;
index-linking of the prices of raw materials to those of
industrial products; free access for the products the South
to northern markets through the elimination of
protectionist measures; reform of the Bretton Woods
institutions to bring them into line with the needs and
preoccupations of the developing countries; and the
promotion of a genuine North-South dialogue. In this
respect, Burkina Faso welcomes with interest and
satisfaction the European initiative to hold an economic
summit next year for the European Union countries and
their African partners.
As everyone knows, we can make many plans, have
many ambitious dreams and imagine all sorts of
transformations for our world. But if we do not place
justice, equity and solidarity at the heart of all our
projects, they will remain fantasies. Justice demands, for
example, that we not starve a population through the use
of international sanctions in order to punish its
Government. Since I am touching upon that subject, I
would like to reaffirm our full solidarity with the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, and I hope that, as a result of the
concessions made by that country with regard to the
Lockerbie affair, the unfair sanctions against the brotherly
Libyan people will be lifted for good. Since the historic
decision at Ouagadougou, this requirement has become
imperative, in our view.
In this context, the issue of the Republic of China on
Taiwan also deserves attention. In the interests of equity
and of the principle of universality, Burkina Faso believes
14

that it is unfair virtually to ostracize 22 million Chinese
people. That is why we firmly support the initiative to
create a study group to examine the particular and
exceptional situation of the Republic of China on Taiwan
so as to determine how that entity could be represented in
the United Nations.
In that connection, in the interests of justice within
international relations, we must restructure the Organization
so that we can better respond to the demands of our time
and the expectations of humanity. If the United Nations is
to be more democratic and more just, such reform must go
to the heart of its main body, the Security Council, whose
composition and operating methods must be reviewed and
corrected. The operational capacities of the Organization —
the structures and activities linked to the promotion of
economic and social development — must also be
strengthened.
Burkina Faso believes the human being to be the
supreme measure of all things. That is why human rights
and the dignity of humankind are at the centre of our
concerns. In fact, since 1991, my country has been
steadfastly undertaking an irreversible process of
democratization that has led to several rounds of municipal,
legislative and presidential elections under conditions
recognized by international observers as being calm and
unbiased. The process is being consolidated and the culture
of democracy and citizenship in a republican system is well
under way. The stability and security of our country in the
current turbulent environment bear witness to that fact.
We believe that no price can be placed on democracy
and freedom. That is why we will spare no effort to
strengthen and extend those values. Burkina Faso intends to
make a modest contribution to building a more human
world of greater justice and solidarity, because we are
convinced that the new international order to which we all
aspire requires that political, economic and social forces
throughout the world join hands and become catalysts of
progress for the benefit of humanity.