First, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election to this
important post. The fact that a representative of Bulgaria has assumed this
post at the head of the Assembly at precisely this time is a sign of the
importance that the world community attaches to the peaceful democratic
revolution in Eastern Europe. And we are proud that our countries, linked by
ties of traditional friendship, are treading this path together.
The democratic movement has prevailed in the cold war. For the first
time in history unprecedented opportunities have opened up for the
implementation of the principles proclaimed by the United Nations.

The post-confrontational and post-communist world is not a
pax Sovietica. a pax Americana, a pax Islamica or a pax Christiana, nor is it
a monopolistic system of any kind, but rather the multipolar unity in
diversity that the United Nations has symbolized from the very outset.
For the present, such a world is only a possibility yet to be realized
through our joint efforts. Realism leaves no room for euphoria. A difficult
period of transition lies ahead. But realism compels us to reject any
alternative to the democratic choice.
Russia, which has rejected communism, has, perhaps more than any other
country, learned from its own experience that there can be no alternative to
democratic development; our country voted for democracy during the first
nation-wide presidential election in its history, and defended it at the
barricades around the Moscow White House. Neither the President, nor the
Government, nor the majority of Parliament, nor the country at large will turn
aside from the path of reform, no matter how difficult it may prove.
Totalitarianism robbed Russia both of its unique identity and of the
possibility of self-fulfilment in its relations with other nations. Through
its self-imposed isolation, the richest country of Eurasia became the sick man
of Europe and Asia. In contrast, only an open society and a policy of
openness will enable Russia to find and play to the fullest extent its unique
and historic role.
This policy has its roots in an age-old Russian idea. Back in the
thirteenth century Saint Alexander Nevsky, one of the founders and defenders
of the Russian State, said: "God is to be found not in power but in truth".

Today this is the policy of the true national interests of the Russian
State as a normal rather than an aggressive great Power, as one that
recognizes and shoulders its responsibilities as a permanent member of the
Security Council.
The basic elements of this policy are as follows: partnership and
alliance for democracy and a dynamic market economy with countries that share
these values; good-neighbourly relations with all neighbouring States;
comprehensive strengthening of the Commonwealth of Independent States,
strategic partnership with Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and all
other countries created in the place of the former Soviet Union; and
solidarity and mutually advantageous cooperation with all the members of the
world community.
Russia intends to act in support of United Nations efforts to address
the twofold task of the democratization of societies and the renewal of
international relations. This is consonant with the concluding statement of
the summit meeting of the Security Council, with Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali's report "An Agenda for Peace" and with the first
statements already made from this rostrum. Russia is ready to give practical
support to the proposals made yesterday by George Bush, President of the
United States.
First of all, it is necessary to extinguish armed conflicts.
The Russian Federation will increase its efforts to eliminate conflicts
inherited from the past in the territory of the former USSR, bearing in mind
the special interest and responsibility of Russia in strengthening the
civilized principles of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in this part of the world.

Russia supports the participation of the new independent States in these
two organizations and other international forums. We welcome their
representatives in this Hall.
We categorically reject imperialistic ambitions, diktat and violence,
both in the area of the former USSR and in other parts of the world. Should
political means fail, force can and should be used to separate the warring
sides, to protect human rights and humanitarian missions and to restore peace
in strict conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.
Agreements for cease-fires and for the establishment of peace-keeping
forces, concluded with Russian participation, are already in effect in
Ossetia, the Dniester region and Abkhazia, where Russian soldiers are carrying
out their peace-keeping duties. Together with CSCE, we will strive to end the
war and bring peace to Karabakh and to secure the integrity of Tajikistan and
bring national reconciliation to that country. In all those efforts we count
on continued active cooperation with the United Nations.
We support efforts aimed at forcing Iraq to implement the decisions of
the United Nations and ensuring at the same time the territorial integrity and
the peaceful nature of that State. For that purpose, Russia has sent two
naval vessels to the Persian Gulf.
We also must ensure that the demands of the Security Council are
complied with by all the Yugoslav sides and must enable them to maintain
contact with the United Nations. A Russian infantry battalion is serving
honourably with the United Nations forces in Yugoslavia.
I agree with the preceding speaker concerning the need to support the
efforts of Mr. Panic for the practical implementation of the intentions he has
declared.

Russia will continue to cooperate actively with the other permanent
members of the Security Council and with all the parties concerned in
order to seize the opportunity for a peaceful settlement in the Middle
East, Cambodia, Angola and other areas of conflict.
We have no doubt that it is the task of the United Nations to combat
violence with force based on law, with its potential for enforcing peace.
The Blue Helmets should take action in response even when they are fired
upon.
It is time to strengthen the capacity of the Security Council to
take swift and decisive action in humanitarian emergency situations
arising from mass violations of human rights and inter-ethnic clashes,
including those within national borders.

It is important to strengthen the preventive component of United Nations
activities. This includes the establishment of hot lines to United Nations
Headquarters, the submission of intelligence information to the
Secretary-General and the further development of fact-finding.
Enhanced United Nations efforts to safeguard human rights and the rights
of national minorities are also a priority. In the past it was chiefly the
victims of totalitarian regimes and ideologies who needed protection. What is
increasingly needed now is to combat the aggressive nationalism that is
emerging as the new global threat.
The replacement of ideological intolerance with national and religious
intolerance would threaten the world which is increasingly becoming one
world - with rifts just as serious and with national, regional and global
catastrophes. Democratic Russia categorically rejects any form of chauvinism,
be it Russophobia or anti-Semitism.
We feel special concern at the growing discriminatory practices against
Russians, Ukrainians, Jews and all other non-indigenous nationalities in some
of the new States that have emerged in the territory of the former USSR,
particularly in Estonia and Latvia. A situation in which 42 per cent of the
population of the Estonian Republic are disenfranchised is totally
inconsistent with international law.
We have raised and will continue to raise these issues in the United
Nations and other forums. We have the right to do so, among other reasons,
because the countries in question won their independence, to a substantial
extent, through the triumph of the democrats in Russia. The practices I have
referred to can in no way be justified by invoking the problem, inherited from
the USSR, of the withdrawal of armed forces from the Baltic States. We are

already working together to resolve that problem, and we intend to resolve it
as soon as possible; however, due regard must also be given to the rights of
those who are in military uniform.
It would be appropriate to give thought to a joint interpretation of the
international trusteeship system set forth in the Charter of the United
Nations, particularly since one of its basic objectives is and I quote the
Charter - "To encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". That
system has brought many nations to independence. Today national minorities
desperately need the trusteeship of the world community.
The fate of former Soviet servicemen taken prisoner in Afghanistan
remains one of the gravest humanitarian problems. We call upon the General
Assembly to proclaim its support for the urgent resolution of this problem.
The rejection of the game of "nuclear roulette" in favour of cooperation
in the interests of strategic stability for all and with the participation of
all States concerned is reflected in the agreements on further drastic cuts in
strategic offensive arms and on a global defense system reached in Washington
by the Presidents of Russia and the United States of America.
Reaffirming its commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, the Russian Federation invites all countries that have not
yet done so to join the Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States. It is our belief
that all the former Republics of the USSR, including Ukraine, Belarus and
Kazakhstan, will do so. This step should be taken as soon as possible, since
the entry into force of the treaty on strategic offensive arms depends on it.

We expect that a sense of high responsibility and a readiness to reach
compromise solutions will prevail in the decisive phase of the approval of the
Convention on the banning of chemical weapons.
Russia is in favour of control, including control through the United
Nations, over international arms transfers, especially over offensive and
highly destructive weapons. The approach taken with respect to regimes that
disregard the standards of international law should be particularly strict.
There is an obvious need for the development of concrete
military-industry conversion programmes, not only through the efforts of
individual countries but also through the combined action of the international
community. The United Nations and its specialized agencies could play a
pioneering role in this endeavour. In the long run, real disarmament and the
conversion of military industries to peaceful production will make it possible
to release additional resources for the needs of development.
But development cannot be achieved without ensuring full political and
economic rights and freedoms, without releasing human creative potential in a
market environment. Russia has learned this from its own experience.
For a successful solution of the problems of development, it is extremely
important to strengthen the interaction between the United Nations and the
Bretton Woods institutions. Herein lies the key to the harmonization of the
world community's efforts in such areas as support of macroeconomic reforms
and technical assistance and the provision of help in resolving social
problems. Both developing and developed countries will benefit from this.
The United Nations Conference at Rio de Janeiro reinforced the consensus
on the need to integrate development policies and environmental protection.

The task of renewing international relations calls for the
rationalization of the United Nations itself and of the United Nations
system. The desire of some States to play a more active role in the United
Nations is quite natural. The Charter provides ample scope for this. In
particular, the Charter permits the Security Council to establish auxiliary
bodies in which many States would participate. We are convinced that the
United Nations and other international organizations will play a growing role
in regulating international relations.
In conclusion, I should like to address you, Mr. Secretary-General.
Russia supports your efforts to bring about the settlement of international
crises, to improve the efficiency of the United Nations Secretariat and the
coordination of the activities of all international agencies.
Support of the United Nations presupposes the fulfilment of financial
obligations to the Organization. Despite its economic difficulties, in the
period from September of this year to March 1993 Russia will pay $130 million
as partial payment of our arrears to the United Nations and an additional
$30 million to other agencies.
Your recent statements in Moscow, Mr. Secretary-General, have confirmed
the similarity of our vision of the great future of the United Nations.


First of all, let
me convey to all members of the General Assembly the greetings of the people
of Djibouti.
I should like to take this opportunity to address to you, Mr. President,
my warmest congratulations on your election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its forty-seventh session. I am convinced that you will guide our
deliberations in such a way as to bring them to a successful conclusion, and I
wish you every success.
That was the case at last year's session, at which Mr. Samir Shihabi,
Ambassador of a great fraternal country, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, presided
over the General Assembly. We are indebted to him for the important
achievements in the field of restructuring and revitalizing the United
Nations. I should like to express to the former Permanent Representative, who
is leaving us, our best wishes for the future.
I should also like to pay a well-deserved tribute to the son of Africa
and the Arab world, my brother and friend Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
Secretary-General of the United Nations, for the dignified and enlighten way
in which, for almost a year, he has been discharging his duties in the
Secretariat. I wish to emphasize that my country fully appreciates the
efforts Mr. Boutros-Ghali is making to find lasting solutions to the various
crises and wars throughout the world, thus promoting peace and international
cooperation.
Moreover, in his annual report on the activities of the Organization, the
Secretary-General has highlighted the many vital issues before the United
Nations ranging from the Organization's financial crisis to its added
responsibilities as a result of the changes under way, which are sorely
testing the resources available to the Organization.
In this respect, the establishment by the Secretary-General of an
advisory group of eminent persons to study and formulate proposals to make the
United Nations financially solvent seems to us to be an appropriate and timely
initiative.
Lastly, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the States which have
joined the United Nations this year.
The end of the cold war has brought important issues into sharp focus,
namely, sovereignty, peace-keeping and democracy. National boundaries are
fast collapsing and internal civil strife is growing with increasing intensity.
The changing context of the international political landscape and the
concomitant flareup of conflicts in many regions of the world are sufficient
reason to reflect upon new ways and means to contain the evolving threats to
international peace and security. In that regard, the Secretary-General's
Agenda for Peace contains ideas and proposals such as the use of preventive
diplomacy, peace-keeping and peace-making; it deserves the fullest attention
of the General Assembly.
States new and old are ravaged by ethnic and clan rivalries. The United
Nations therefore needs the unwavering support of the international community
in order to be able to respond urgently, effectively and substantially to
these new phenomena of our time. Will the nascent democracies, in their weak
and poorly equipped condition, be able to cope with urgent demands for
material improvement? And if they cannot deliver, could they not lose popular
support? Democracy under relatively favourable conditions is obviously far
different both in theory and in practice indeed, in every respect from
democracy in a country in a vicious circle of dependence, poverty and
instability.
The proliferation of political parties in a pluralistic system invariably
leads to parties based on ethnicity. Clearly, there must be an alternative
framework for these democracies suffering from dire economic conditions and
from chronic problems of debt, disease, hunger and poverty. The Speaker of
Namibia's National Assembly described the situation forthrightly:
"We have learned that once you have acquired a constitution and achieved
the goal of political independence and freedom, you will find that you
cannot eat votes in a ballot box".
In Africa and many countries elsewhere in the developing world, we see
pressure being exerted to reduce and disperse national sovereignty. This is a
dangerous precedent in the new regional and international order that is
emerging. In his address to the summit of non-aligned countries at Jakarta,
the Secretary-General forcefully expressed his apprehension, saying that
"Recent geopolitical changes are characterized by a greater degree
of homogeneity in the world, which we welcome as a precious harbinger of
concord and unity. Yet neither decolonization nor the dismantling of the
blocs has erased the phenomenon of power. Attempts to dominate, either
world-wide or regionally, remain. They continue to threaten the weakest
and poorest States, which are still the most numerous in the world".
I share the view of the Secretary-General that the new world order must
be based on democracy in international relations, and that at the same time
each of us, particularly the developing countries, must remain steadfast on
the fundamental principles of national sovereignty, non-intervention in the
internal affairs of a State, and international cooperation.
In my last address to this Assembly, on 21 September 1977, on the
occasion of my country's admission to the United Nations, I described in
addition to the joy we felt on acceding to our freedom my determination to
contribute to adherence to respect for human rights in the Horn of Africa.
That ambition was no doubt too lofty, or premature, for since then too many
events - often tragic have occurred; their harmful consequences show no sign
of abatement.
We are aware of, and grateful for, the vital and essential role played by
the Secretary-General in bringing the question of Somalia squarely before the
Security Council, in the signature of the cease-fire agreement concluded in
New York between hostile brothers, and in the deployment of United Nations
forces to deliver humanitarian assistance.
Thus, to the international community, which has now made a massive
response with humanitarian assistance, we convey all our gratitude and our
support in this urgent task, which includes the restoration of civil peace and
security in Somalia.
The nightmarish sight of children breathing their last in their mothers'
emaciated arms, and those equally unbearable images of women and old men who
no longer have the strength even to walk or to show the least expression in
their faces and whose death is already in their eyes, shocked us as they
shocked the whole world. In the name of what might could a whole nation
condemn itself to self-destruction? The tragedy in Somalia is not inevitable;
that is to say, human stupidity sometimes causes more devastation than natural
disasters. While the world has belatedly come to realize the full extent of
what is happening today in that country, there is nothing to indicate that
this tragedy will not claim more victims hundreds of thousands of them in
the months to come.
Somalia as we knew it no longer exists. In the absence of national
government and central authority, the nation has been plunged into total
anarchy. Indeed, it has returned to a state of veritable barbarism.
The differences involved have nothing to do with ideology or politics.
It is simply sheer, blind obsession with power. We clearly see the result of
the tenacity of the oppressive, tyrannical warlords and clans who have reduced
a whole country to rubble.
Somalia, which has never in its history known such a famine or such a
disaster, needs all of us to save it from this apocalypse that has descended
on its people, victims of the folly and narrow-minded egotism of men. A whole
country has been razed, reduced to rubble, by war, drought and famine. It is
a wasteland ruled by armed gangs of bandits and looters. death, human misery
and abject poverty are rampant.
Providing humanitarian assistance under such conditions of warfare is
extremely dangerous. In Somalia's neighbouring countries, including Djibouti<
the Somali refugees are either in urban centres, straining already-limited and
underdeveloped resources, or in camps that are dangerously crowded, facing
shortages of food and medical supplies.
Nobody can say with certainty how many people have already died, but at
least 1.5 million people, one-third of the population, are threatened with
starvation, children, women and old people being especially vulnerable. I can
only echo the desperation of a Red Cross official in Baidoa who said, "We are
in the middle of the tunnel, and we can't see the light yet."
Our hearts go out to the personnel of the international humanitarian
organizations who, despite the dangers, care for, feed and save the lives of
the innocent victims of this senseless fratricide.
The question before us today is not only how to save lives through the
delivery of sufficient food to end the famine or how to stop the senseless
fighting. Rather, in a scenario like that of Somalia, the question is what
the United Nations, together with the international community, can devise
collectively to reorganize a new nation of Somalia. Let us make a commitment
today that we are bound together by the purposes and principles enshrined in
the Charter not to let any country simply vanish from our midst!
There is another persistent crisis which continues to shock us all,
namely, the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The entire world is horrified
at the war being waged in that very young republic. For several months now,
the country has been facing armed aggression from outside. The efforts made
to date by the international community to halt the aggression by Serbia and
Montenegro by political and economic means and to settle this crisis
peacefully have been in vain. It is, on the contrary, becoming more and more
evident that the Serbian authorities are using this conflict to carry out a
policy of "ethnic cleansing".
If peace is to prevail in that region, all the provisions of the
agreement reached at the London Conference must be implemented immediately.
And if hostilities still continue, we call on the international community to
implement all the provisions of the Security Council resolutions concerning
recourse to all necessary measures, including military force, to come to the
aid of that martyred country.
Djibouti is addressing the Organization today at a time when it is in the
process of overcoming a war that has been imposed upon it. It will succeed,
thanks to the unfailing attachment of Djiboutians to their homeland and their
will to live together in peace; thanks to the support of fraternal and
friendly countries, and thanks, lastly, to the continued assistance of the
United Nations in defence of our right to sovereignty, independence and peace.
Since its accession to independence, on 27 June 1977, the Republic
of Djibouti has had to face not only complex problems of economic and
social development, but also and above all - the negative impact on its
precarious socio-economic infrastructure of the constant, destabilizing
wars in the region.
Devastation is never confined to the geographical area of one
country or one subregion; it extends across frontiers and endangers the
stability of neighbouring countries, whose populations are, in most cases,
of the same origin.
This is precisely what is happening in Djibouti, whose population is
increasing daily as a result of the continual influx of men, women and
children with no alternative but to abandon their country for a more
hospitable environment. For many months now Djibouti has been playing
host to an alarming number of refugees and displaced persons. I therefore
feel compelled to look to the future needs of our State, which cannot
indefinitely share its meagre resources without risking to the adverse
reactions of the community whose interests it has a duty to safeguard.
While we have been struggling through this difficult ordeal the
international community, rather than relieving and helping us, has
unfortunately perceived the problem only from the purely humanitarian
standpoint, thus disregarding the negative consequences for the entire
social and economic life of my country.
In response to the egalitarian ideas we have been hearing for many
years, which originate from beyond our frontiers, my Government has been
constantly engaged in examining all possibilities which might lead to the
restoration of peace. It has also pursued a process leading to the
establishment of new institutions, which were put to the judgement of the
voters at the beginning of this month.
The response of the people was astonishingly clear. The vote was
preceded by a law instituting a general amnesty relating to events during
the period characterized by the de facto partition, brought about on the
initiative of a negligible portion of the population. They had
considerable foreign reinforcements, who came from not very far away, and
whose motives, as well as the origin of the resources they received, were
not hard to ascertain.
Some may consider that this is only a phase, despite the
introduction of a multiparty system and the fixing of dates for the people
to choose their representatives at all levels of political life. I
believe that I have reason to hope that, with the understanding of
friendly countries, the support of international organizations, the good
will of our people and the help of the Almighty, our nation can look to a
future full of possibilities and with renewed hope.
The serious recent events in South Africa in particular, the
Boipatong massacre on 17 June 1992 and more recently the killing of 28
demonstrators show the extent to which violence is still the order of
the day. The refusal of the South African authorities to control that
violence is casting a shadow over the progress made in South Africa's
political life and is disrupting the process of peaceful change which the
majority of the South African people so earnestly desire.
There is no alternative to negotiations for peaceful change in South
Africa. To this end, the international community will have to continue to
put pressure on the authorities in Pretoria to take the energetic measures
required to contain once and for all the forces opposed to the elimination
of apartheid. To do this, they must create a climate of security
conducive to the resumption of dialogue for the emergence of a united,
democratic and non-racial South Africa.
We welcome the deployment of United Nations observers, who I hope
will help to avoid further massacres and to relaunch a constructive
dialogue between the Government and the majority of the South African
population.
All of our attention has been focused on the initiatives and efforts
under way in Washington to promote a credible peace that will lead to a
just and comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli crisis. In welcoming
those developments, Djibouti pays tribute to the Government of the United
States of America and to all those contributing to the establishment of a
just and lasting peace in that part of the Middle East.
Nevertheless, the following are essential conditions for peaceful
coexistence among the peoples of the region; the self-determination of the
Palestinian people; a total freeze on settlements; the abandonment of all
repressive policies and practices against the population of the occupied
territories; and the withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied
since June 1967, including East Jerusalem.
Like all nations of the world, the Arabs want peace. They have
demonstrated this desire and proved it time and again through a series of
goodwill gestures and indeed through substantial major compromises in the
current negotiating framework. This wisdom and this openness of mind have not
to date been reciprocated by compatible language. What the Arabs are calling
for is comprehensive and genuine talks that fully and seriously address the
key issues of peace, land and security. Let us see if Israel will start once
and for all to negotiate in good faith. Let us see if it will move in tandem
with the propitious international political climate. By continually demanding
more security and more concessions while the status quo over territory and
peace persists, Israel is simply squandering a precious moment. It is high
time that reason prevailed over age-old hatred, acrimony, injustice and
obstinacy.
In his annual report on the work of the Organization, the economic
situation in the world in general and, in particular, the constant
deterioration of the economies of most of the developing countries, the
Secretary-General amply illustrates the bleak economic situation that exists
in most of the world. Although the responsibility for solving economic
problems at the national level rests in the first place with the countries
concerned, no national effort, however forceful it may be, can be viably
sustained unless it is undertaken within the framework of a responsibility
shared with the international community and, even more important, unless it is
backed by appropriate arrangements, a favourable environment and effective
international assistance.
The task facing the Africans is complex and of considerable scope. It
will call for great efforts, indeed sacrifices, on our part. In this respect
the new programme for the development of Africa in the 1990s, which is a
contract between Africa and its international partners, merits the support of
the international community.
I cannot disregard the fact that the impressive changes we have mentioned
have taken place against a background of rising levels of poverty among vast
sectors of the world's population. Redefining international cooperation for
development must consequently be the new priority of the multilateral
programme. It is thus essential to define a broader approach to this
cooperation, one which pays particular attention to the developing countries
in general, and to the least developed countries in particular, with a view to
achieving sustainable development.
The adoption of the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21 and the other agreements
reached at the historic Rio Conference demonstrates that the international
community is prepared to work in partnership for the protection of the
environment and the introduction of a development taking into account the
economic equilibrium of all. The "Spirit of Rio" has engendered great hopes
for the one billion human beings living in extreme deprivation. Now
everything depends on the follow-up and implementation of the programmes
agreed.
The new mechanisms and practical measures to be negotiated during this
session of the General Assembly ought, in our view, to permit access by the
developing countries to technology and additional financial resources. We
express the hope that the pledges to finance the objectives of Agenda 21 will
be commensurate with the task; the credibility of the international community
is at stake. The new commission on sustainable development, soon to be
established, will have to provide the necessary infusion of energy and
institute bold policies that will enable us to face the attendant challenges.
In conclusion, we in the Republic of Djibouti are confidently awaiting
the day when all the peoples of the Horn of Africa will have overcome the
spectre of famine and poverty and will live in peace and prosperity.


It gives me great pleasure to extend to you.
Sir, my sincere congratulations on your unanimous election as President of the
forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. To your distinguished
predecessor. Ambassador Shamir S. Shihabi, I should like to convey our deep
appreciation for the exemplary manner in which he presided over the last
session.
I am also pleased to see our eminent Secretary-General,
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, by your side. His incisive analysis of the
impediments to the realization of the full potential' of the United Nations and
his recommendations on how to strengthen its capacity to maintain peace,
secure independence and justice and foster generalized prosperity in the
world, as contained in his report entitled "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277),
do indeed deserve our serious consideration.
We welcome the new Members in our midst: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of

Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Their
accession to membership not only brings us ever closer to the goal of true
universality of our Organization but also underscores the unflagging hope that
humanity reposes in this multilateral forum for resolving the global issues of
our time.
It is my privilege and responsibility to bring to the Assembly a message
from the developing countries belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement. I come
here from the Tenth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Movement
of Non-Aligned Countries, which Indonesia had the distinct honour to host
earlier this month. It was the largest Non-Aligned Summit ever convened.
I am honoured, therefore, to address the Assembly not only on behalf of
the 180 million people of Indonesia, but also on behalf of the Non-Aligned
Movement, which has 108 members, representing the vast majority of humankind
and close to two thirds of the members of the Assembly.

On behalf of the leaders of the Movement, whose consensus views were
summed up in what has come to be known as the Jakarta message, may I
convey to the Assembly the gist of that message.
As a political coalition encompassing more sovereign States than has
any other grouping in history, we shall not be mere spectators nor agree
to be on the sidelines of the currents of historical change now sweeping
across the globe. We commit ourselves to the shaping of a new
international order free from war and poverty, intolerance and injustice,
a world order based on the principles of peaceful coexistence and genuine
interdependence, one that takes into account the diversity of the social
systems and cultures of the world. We pledge to seek that new
international order through the central and irreplaceable instrumentality
of the United Nations.
Holding fast to the principles of the Movement as first articulated
at Bandung 37 years ago, we affirm the fundamental rights of every human
being and every nation to development, to social progress and to full
participation in the shaping of their common destiny. Through dialogue
and cooperation our Movement will seek to place itself as a vibrant,
constructive and interdependent component of the mainstream of
international relations so that a new international order can take shape
on a truly universal basis, ensuring harmony, peace, justice and
prosperity for all.
That is the essence of the Jakarta message. Permit me now to
elaborate on a few points.

The comprehensive decisions and positions adopted by the tenth
non-aligned summit, as recorded in its final documents, constitute both a
response and an initiative, a dynamic adaptation in the face of the
challenges and opportunities posed by the profound and radical
developments that have transformed the patterns of international
relationships. To a large extent the Non-Aligned Movement contributed to
these global transformations. The unrelenting drive that it imparted to
the world-wide decolonization process and to the struggle against racism
hastened the demise of colonial empires, the rise of numerous newly
independent States and the retreat of the inhuman policy of apartheid.
And yet the world today is still far from being peaceful, just and
secure. Simmering disputes, violent conflicts, aggression and foreign
occupation, interference in the internal affairs of States, policies of
hegemony and domination, ethnic strife, religious intolerance, new forms
of racism and narrowly conceived nationalism continue to obstruct the
building of harmonious coexistence between States and peoples and have
even led to the disintegration of States and societies. A profoundly
anguishing example is that of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, whose break-up has led to the formation of separate,
independent States, three of which, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and
Slovenia, have since become Members of the United Nations.
On these explosive and tragic crises in various parts of the world
our Movement has taken a clear stand. We have called for speedy and
resolute action to end the carnage in Bosnia and Herzegovina and condemned
the massive atrocities and violations of human rights being committed

against the people of that Republic, especially its Muslim population. We
have also condemned the repugnant policy of "ethnic cleansing", reaffirmed
the inadmissibility of aggression and of acquisition of territory by
force, and called for full respect for the sovereignty, independence,
territorial integrity and cultural identity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
We have launched collective action to help alleviate the immense
suffering of the people of Somalia and to play a critical role in the
search for a comprehensive solution to the fratricidal conflict in that
land.
We have reiterated our unflinching support for the struggle of the
Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), to realize their inalienable right to self-
determination, independence and sovereign statehood in their own
homeland. We call on the world community to prevail upon Israel to
contribute to the search for peace through the implementation of the
Security Council resolutions that provide for the withdrawal of Israel
from all occupied Palestine and Arab lands. And once again we stress the
imperative need to end the universally condemned system of apartheid, once
and for all, and of establishing a non-racial, democratic and united South
Africa.
Having welcomed the end of the Gulf War and the restoration of
Kuwait's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, we have
urged the commencement of a process of reconciliation that will finally
heal the wounds of war and restore stable peace and harmonious cooperation
in that region.

While we rejoiced at the establishment of the transitional
government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, the tenth summit noted
with regret that the process towards national reconciliation and the
establishment of a permanent government through free and fair elections is
still marred by continuing internecine strife. We hope that these
obstacles will soon be overcome so that peace can be restored and national
reconstruction can commence.
On Cambodia, we have reiterated our confidence in the
determination and capability of the Cambodian people, under the leadership
of Prince Samdech Norodom Sihanouk and the members of the Supreme National
Council, with the assistance of the United Nations Transitional Authority
in Cambodia (UNTAC), to uphold the Paris Agreements in their balanced
totality. We remain convinced that the Paris Agreements are still the
best basis for the achievement of a comprehensive, just and durable peace
in Cambodia, based on national reconciliation and reconstruction. Only
through their strict implementation will it be possible to bring to an end
the protracted war that has inflicted unspeakable suffering and
devastation on the Cambodian people.

A world caught in the throes of pervasive change and transition is
basically an unstable and unpredictable world. The Movement has therefore
resolved to intensify its efforts in the field of disarmament. While it is
true that there has been encouraging progress in limiting nuclear and
conventional armaments, the disarmament agenda is still largely unfinished. A
nuclear-weapon-free world has always been the vision of our movement, for
until it is achieved this threat to human survival will continue to cast its
shadow over all other endeavours and aspirations. We have urged accelerated
efforts on other priority disarmament issues, particularly the prohibition of
all weapons of mass destruction.
Besides posing an acute danger to world peace and security, the
continuing global arms race and unbridled military spending also constitute a
huge drain on national economies and on the world economy. Our Movement has
consistently maintained that the resources released through disarmament and
arms reduction should be redirected towards the social and economic
development of all countries, especially the developing countries. The
establishment of this productive linkage between disarmament and development
will also make it possible to attain security at lower levels of armament.
We should now recognize that peace and security depend as much on
socio-economic factors as on military ones. Sharply reduced prospects for
economic and social advancement, large-scale unemployment, abject poverty,
massive cross-border migrations and severe environmental degradation also
endanger peace. We cannot hope to attain comprehensive security and stable
peace without making substantive progress in the war against poverty,
underdevelopment, disease and social injustice.

That is why it should deeply concern us that the world economy is mired
in sluggish and uneven growth. With few exceptions, developing countries are
experiencing stagnation or vastly inadequate growth rates, with the most
vulnerable ones slumping into sharp decline. Most alarming is the prolonged
critical situation in Africa where the plight of millions requires speedy and
decisive action. Africa deserves our special attention.
Developing countries in general are severely hampered by an unfavourable
external economic environment characterized by inadequate access to
technology, unabated protectionism, historically low prices for commodities
and raw materials, severely contracted financial flows and the crushing burden
of external debt, resulting in reverse financial flows to the developed
countries and the multilateral financial institutions.
The external debt crisis of the developing countries has intensified in
magnitude and global impact, and is being exacerbated by volatile
exchange-rate fluctuations for the major currencies and by high interest
rates. The debt-reduction schemes that have been tried are far from adequate;
they need to be broadened to include all kinds of debts and all categories of
debtors, including those that have made great efforts to meet their debt
obligations. A differentiated approach should be adopted that would allow
debt cancellation for the least developed countries and more generous terms,
in both debt servicing and new concessional loans, for lower-income developing
countries. Our Movement will continue to press for a coordinated and
development-oriented approach to the solution of this problem that will bring
relief as well as allow for the recovery and continued growth of debtor
countries.

Even global developments that appear to imply positive prospects could
have a negative impact on the developing countries. The transformation of
Central and Eastern European economies and the formation of powerful groupings
among developed countries could deflect the focus from poverty alleviation in
developing countries and adversely affect their trade and growth prospects.
Particularly lamentable is the continuing impasse in the Uruguay Round of
multilateral trade negotiations. The Non-Aligned Movement has therefore
called on the developed countries to ensure without further delay a balanced,
equitable and satisfactory conclusion of the Uruguay Round that would take
into account the interests of all parties, especially the development needs
and concerns of the developing countries.
We, the non-aligned countries, realize too well that global problems are
interlinked, especially in the economic sphere. And because most of today's
problems are global in nature, they cannot be solved through short-term relief
measures or through piecemeal reform. Hence, it is time the countries of both
the North and the South forged a new compact on development and a new
democratic partnership in fashioning global solutions to these global
problems. Only in that way can we deliver the world economy from its present
disarray and do away with the inequitable international structures and
modalities that have resulted in deepening disparities and unacceptable
injustices in international economic relations and an inexorably widening
prosperity and technology gap between the developed and the developing
countries. Only in .that way can we hope to restructure the international
economic system and international economic relations so as to make them more
equitable and thus more viable.

We, the non-aligned countries, have therefore called for a revival of the
constructive dialogue between the North and the South. But this time the
dialogue should be based on the imperative of genuine interdependence,
mutuality of interests and of benefits, and shared responsibility, with the
positions of each side clearly elaborated and presented, and rationally
discussed and negotiated. Never before have the fate and fortunes of the
North and the South been so inextricably intertwined.

In the absence of stability and development in the South, the North
cannot hope to sustain its economic prosperity. Without a favourable global
environment, which the policies of the North should provide, the South cannot
achieve its development goals. Thus, common sense dictates the need for both
sides to sit down and discuss how together they can manage the massive changes
and challenges of the decades ahead.
At the same time, we have resolved to intensify South-South cooperation
on the basis of collective self-reliance. This is imperative, for South-South
cooperation is vital for promoting our own development and for reducing undue
dependence on the North. It is also an integral element in any strategy for
the attainment of a new and equitable international economic order. Towards
that end, we are initiating concrete cooperative ventures in such areas as
food security, population, trade and investment, and devising practicable
modalities for their implementation. By thus pooling the resources, expertise
and experience of the South, we hope to translate the concept of collective
self-reliance into reality. We invite the developed countries and the
multilateral financial institutions to support us in this endeavour, for it
should be clear that the fostering of expanded economic cooperation among the
developing countries will in turn impart added vitality to the growth and
expansion of the world economy as a whole and yield corresponding benefits to
the developed countries as well.
A global concern that requires the heightened attention of the entire
international community is the rapid degradation of the environment. We, the
non-aligned countries, welcome the results of the Conference held in Rio de
Janeiro. They confirm the long-held conviction of our Movement that the

issues of environment and development are inseparable and should be integrally
addressed on the basis of equitably shared responsibility. The pursuit of
environmentally sound and sustainable development will require a global
partnership that will have to address the need of developing countries for
commensurate, additional financial resources and access to environmentally
sound technology. Even more important is the effective implementation of the
agreed policies, which will require constant monitoring and consistent
follow-through. In this context, we welcome the establishment of the
high-level Commission on Sustainable Development.
We also believe that social development is no less vital than political
and economic development. We therefore support the convening of a world
summit on social development which should place the social needs of people at
the heart of United Nations endeavours. The full and equal integration of
women into the development process has always been a goal of the Non-Aligned
Movement. Consequently, we shall fully cooperate in ensuring the success of
the World Conference on Women in 1995. We believe that all children should be
raised with a standard of living that is adequate for their health and
well-being. We shall work to achieve that goal as a matter of moral
imperative and commit ourselves to the full and effective implementation of
the Declaration and Plan of Action of the World Summit for Children.
At Jakarta, the non-aligned countries enunciated an unequivocal stand on
human rights. Allow me to quote from the Jakarta Message:
"We reaffirm that basic human rights and fundamental freedoms are of
universal validity. We welcome the growing trend towards democracy and
commit ourselves to cooperate in the protection of human rights. We

believe that economic and social progress facilitates the achievement of
these objectives. No country, however, should use its power to dictate
its concept of democracy and of human rights or to impose conditions on
others. In the promotion and protection of these rights, we emphasise
the inter-relatedness of the various categories, call for a balanced
relationship between individual and community rights, and uphold the
competence and responsibility of national governments in their
implementation. The Non-Aligned Countries, therefore, shall coordinate
their positions and actively participate in the preparatory work for the
Second World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993 in order to ensure
that the Conference addresses all aspects of human rights on the basis of
universality, indivisibility, impartiality and non-selectivity."
Moreover, it is our firm conviction that the objective of human rights is
the realization of the full potential of the human being, and human potential
is not confined to the political field. The fundamental right to economic and
social development, for example, cannot be separated and cannot be treated
separately from the other categories of human rights. These rights apply to
nations as well as to individuals. Thus, every nation has the right to
determine its own political and economic system and to preserve its cultural
identity as shaped by its own particular historical experience.
The advanced countries of the West have recently been vocal in calling
for democracy and good governance as an integral part of the development
process, especially in the developing countries. Some are even inclined to
make it a new conditionality in development cooperation. The call for
democratization and democratic reform in all countries is indeed valid, for it

relates directly to the basic aspirations of individuals and nations. But
democracy is not a static concept limited to certain established forms and
practices. Its basic principles and tenets are indeed of universal and
immutable validity. But no single model of democracy can be assumed to be of
universal applicability, given the diversity of cultural values and historical
experiences of the nations of the world.

Moreover, it would be a denial of the basic tenets of democracy if its
values were to be strictly observed within nations while they are being
ignored among nations. Hence democracy and democratization are dynamic
processes that should conform to the fundamental values of each nation and
constantly adapt to evolving realities in order to remain relevant and, more
important, democratic.
These observations equally apply to the United Nations. That is why the
Movement of Non-Aligned Countries has always insisted that this multilateral
Organization should likewise reflect the democratic spirit of equality, equity
and transparency, in representation as well as in the processes of
decision-making. Therefore the United Nations and its principal organs should
periodically undergo a process of review and revitalization in order to ensure
its dynamic adaptation to the evolving realities of international life, and in
order that it may continue to play an effective role as the focal point for
the management of the critical global issues of our time.
We the non-aligned countries have therefore resolved to play an active
and constructive role in the revitalization, restructuring and democratization
of the United Nations system. For this purpose, we have decided to establish
a high-level working group charged with elaborating concrete proposals for the
restructuring of the United Nations.
We believe that a balanced relationship among the General Assembly, the
Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Secretary-General is
imperative. There should be greater accountability of the Security Council to
the General Assembly on decisions and actions affecting the interests of the
entire international community. The role of the General Assembly as a forum
for deliberation, negotiation and decision-making must be enhanced.

It is our conviction that the United Nations capacity for enhancing
international development and cooperation should be strengthened by
revitalizing the Economic and Social Council. We believe that the office of
the Secretary-General should be provided with resources that are commensurate
with its tasks, which have vastly expanded as a result of recent world
events. The Secretary-General's mandate should be enlarged to enable him to
take the necessary initiatives in the pursuit of preventive diplomacy and in
enhancing the efficacy of United Nations peace-making, peace-keeping and
peace-building operations.
We believe also that it is time to address the matter of the size and
composition of the Security Council. This, we realize, should be done with
circumspection, for it involves a fundamental aspect of the Organization's
purposes and functions.
When the Charter of the United Nations was framed and its organs
established in 1945, the main preoccupation of its founding members was
rightly so that never again should the scourge of war be allowed to
devastate humankind. They therefore envisioned a collective security system
that they thought could be capable of preventing another world war.
Since then, however, the world has changed in a most profound way. Over
the past 47 years, numerous nations achieved their independence and joined the
United Nations as sovereign Member States, thus giving the Organization
near-universality in its composition. Their entry reflected the universal
drive of peoples to liberate themselves from colonial bondage. But what was
the ultimate goal of the struggle? They fought for political independence,
not because it was an end unto itself, but because it was the necessary
condition for the attainment of a further and larger goal: development.

Those who fought for independence invariably had a vision of their own people
attaining the blessings and the dignity of economic and social progress, which
is never possible in a state of political subjugation.
In a very real sense, true freedom is attained only through development,
and the formal trappings of political independence are empty until they are
substantiated by economic and social progress. While it may be true that
colonialism in its classical form has virtually come to an end, the process of
decolonization will not be finished until economic independence is achieved.
Thus, if in the past the major preoccupation of the United Nations was,
rightly, the prevention of another world conflagration and the liberation of
peoples from political bondage, today the world, and therefore the United
Nations, should be seized with the struggle of all countries for national
development. This preoccupation should be reflected in the work of the United
Nations and in the composition and dynamics of its organs, in particular the
Security Council.
We live in an age of development in which economic power has become more
decisive than ever. We live in a world where billions of people in the
developing countries of the South are beginning to assert their right to
realize their economic and social potential.
We believe therefore that the Security Council should be expanded to
accommodate new members who, if they are not to be given veto powers, should
at least serve as permanent members. They should join the Council on the
basis of a combination of relevant criteria that more faithfully reflect the
world situation today. That means that the criteria should also take into
account the changing concept of security, which has now to emphasize the
economic and social aspects as much as the military. We cannot close our

eyes to the fact that the economic policies of industrialized countries and
the economic weight of the developing countries, particularly the most
populous among them, have as much bearing on international peace and security
as the armaments of the military Powers. We further believe that it may also
be timely and pertinent that the manner in which the veto powers are now
exercised should be subjected to a constructive review.
The full elaboration of the meaning and intent of the Jakarta message
will be found, not in our speeches, but in the concrete work of the Movement
in the days to come. It is a momentous task that we have to undertake the
building of a new world order dedicated to peace as well as to justice, to
security as well as to development, to democracy both within and among States,
and to the promotion of the fundamental rights of nations as well as of
individual human beings. Let me re-emphasize that to the non-aligned
countries, any new world order is viable and commonly acceptable only if based
on recognition of the United Nations as its center-piece and its universal
framework and if rooted in the fundamental principles of the United Nations
Charter.
This endeavour will take more than the exercise the best efforts of any
single country or any group of countries. But with the help of God Almighty,
with the support and participation of all nations that share our aspirations,
we shall, God willing, achieve that new world order.


I first had the honour of addressing the
General Assembly in September 1989, shortly after assuming the presidency of
Bolivia. I anticipated then that the vertiginous changes taking place in and
around us would bear the hallmark of what I termed the revolution of
democracy.
Today, after all we have experienced in this brief but intense period, we
can see more clearly that the growth of universal awareness among men and
women has not only given democracy, as a system, a global dimension for the
first time in the history of mankind, but has also meant that its power for
change and its potential for transformation are clearly challenging old ideas,
old structures and old habits.
I will say without fear of contradiction if I may be permitted to
paraphrase what someone has said that democracy is racing round the globe,
no longer a phantasmal newcomer but rather a wind of renewal and hope.
Accordingly, what we must now surely call global democracy is shedding
new light on old truths, leading us to understand better, for example, that
power is, by definition, something to be shared; that we need a new and better
understanding of the dynamics of consensus and dissent; and that the various
forms of intermediation necessary for social life are now in crisis.
Indeed, the more complex the organizational processes of a particular
government, as is the case in democracy, the greater the need for that power
to be shared if we wish to see it adequately maintained and developed. By the
same token, the more rudimentary and simple power is, as is the case in
authoritarianism and dictatorship, the less evident is the necessity of
sharing power.
Similarly, we can now see that the useful consensus on the basis of which
the old democracies of the industrialized countries were built, with
government and opposition thinking and acting virtually in the same way, seems
to citizens a worn-out mechanism that hampers change. Paradoxically, at the
opposite pole, in the young democracies of developing countries, the citizenry
zealously calls for consensus as an essential means of uniting the nation's
forces in pursuit of indispensable changes.
It would seem, then, that where the art of consensus was perfected, the
need is arising to learn how to manage dissent in an appropriate way; and
where dissent had become a way of life and a cause of stagnation, there is a
need in turn to learn how to build consensus. This could well be described as
the dynamics of consensus and dissent under democracy.
As to the forms of intermediation to be found in social life, we also see
that the citizens of universal democracy are striving to reduce intermediacy,
striving to take the initiative in everyday life in a more direct way. It is
then that the citizen comes to regard intermediation as something of his own
that is inescapable, genuine, close, efficient, transparent and
representative. Therefore, we should not be surprised today to find a state
of crisis in the political, religious, trade-union and cultural forms of
intermediation, and even in that great intermediator, the State itself.
This last point is especially useful and relevant as we turn to an
examination of the present state of our Organization, for, in our view, what
has come to be called the crisis of the United Nations seems to be in essence
nothing other than a crisis of intermediation. I say this because in fact we
have always thought that the United Nations represents the most advanced
mechanism of intermediation on Earth but that, in order to continue to be
such, it must adapt itself to the newly emerging global scenarios of the
revolution of democracy.
For nearly half a century after its inception, the United Nations played
the privileged role of intermediary during the era of hegemonic blocs and the
cold war. That indicated the quantity and quality of intermediation possible
within that context, at the same time creating a way of sharing international
power and a method of managing the dynamics of consensus and dissent, within
the prevailing balance, managing in that context to determine even its own
structure, organization and functioning. Under that old order, the United
Nations achieved great credibility. And although in many places peace was not
always preserved, the Organization achieved something that appeared
impossible: prevention of a nuclear conflagration between opposing and
seemingly irreconcilable blocs.
But things have changed dramatically and, with them, so must our
Organization. In saying this I believe I am voicing what all of us in the
Assembly are thinking. It is clear that the new world order needs new
credibility, which the United Nations must earn. The citizens and nations of
global democracy are placing unavoidable challenges before our Organization,
challenges that require us to adapt its structures, modernize its machinery
and identify new priorities and thus the new intermediation that is possible
in terms of quantity and quality. And, with no other aim in mind than that of
seeking answers, allow me to illustrate these ideas by describing a few
selected developments which, in addition to being new, have the common feature
of having gained global proportions, which makes them particularly deserving
of the Organization's keenest attention.
The first of these is what I would describe as the dialectic of the
universal and the particular, or, alternatively, the dialectic of
universalisms and particularisms. I am referring to the obvious fact that
peoples today are expressing two attitudes that are seemingly contradictory
but are none the less part of the same dynamic.
On the one hand they are striving for complementarity through processes
of integration that are laying out ever broader geographical, political,
economic and commercial areas that already constitute a new world geography.
On the other hand, simultaneously and paradoxically, those same peoples and
citizens are reaffirming their identity and their essence, sometimes
intransigently demanding their own cultural, historic, religious, and
immediate political frameworks. In an apparent contradiction, they seem to be
trying to experience, simultaneously and complementarily, the great and the
small, the longer-term and the immediate, the universal and the particular.
The second of these developments arises from the fact that the market
economy has gained ascendancy in the same manner as democracy and, together
with them, the awareness of a better life and the need for well-being and
human and social development have also become global. Consequently, we face
as never before the urgent need for a form of solidarity that will enable us
to hit upon an appropriate relationship between the market economy, democracy,
and human development. That solidarity, by emphasizing social development
and, for many of our countries, in a frontal assault upon poverty, will enable
us also to redefine the foundations of new social legitimacy for States,
internally and internationally.
The third development has to do with something that we agreed upon at the
recent Conference in Rio de Janeiro. We live in a single global ecosystem and
we are all jointly responsible for its conservation and clean-up. We also
agreed that little purpose would be served by preserving a world to be
inhabited by an impoverished human race, which clearly implies that the
ecological stewardship of the planet does not run counter to our peoples'
needs for development. Consequently, it remains for us promptly to endow the
Commission on Sustainable Development with the resources, powers and machinery
it will need to fulfil the objectives we have set for ourselves. That means
implementing Agenda 21, a true plan of action for the next century, as a point
of departure for offsetting the historical environmental debt we have spoken
of in other forums.
The fourth development pertains to technology. In the joint
deliberations the Presidents of the Ibero-American countries engaged in to
mark the Quincentennial of 1492, we concluded that the final explanation for
all colonial processes is to be found in a confrontation in which the winner
achieves ascendancy by virtue of his technological superiority, and that this
first technological defeat lies at the root of dependency and
marginalization. We then agreed that in order to redress that situation it
was necessary to share technological power more democratically, and that one
appropriate way to do so might well be to declare as the common heritage of
mankind those basic technologies that are indispensable to satisfy adequately
the equally basic rights of mankind: health, nutrition, education and
housing. I venture to reiterate that initiative before the Assembly with an
explicit proposal by Bolivia to the international community that we should
seek participatory, creative and markedly personal machinery that would become
the main thrust of the work of the social summit we should now convene.
The fifth, and last, development I wish to bring to the attention of the
Assembly relates to a right which is already recognized under Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of our Organization, which states
that everyone has the right to
"seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers." (resolution 217 (III). Article 19)
Representatives will surely agree that in recent decades technology has
turned information, too, into a phenomenon of equally global proportions. At
the same time, the universal revolution of democracy has instilled an
unprecedented awareness among citizens of their right to inform and be
informed. That growing awareness is in turn linked to the observable fact
that the gap now separating the well-informed citizen from the poorly informed
citizen seems quantitatively and qualitatively greater, or at least equal to,
that other gap separating extremes of wealth and poverty.
All of this leads us, in modern terms, to the perception that information
has become the Gordian knot or, if you wish, the crossroads of human rights.
Indeed, although it may appear an arbitrary simplification, the
better-informed citizen eats more and better than the citizen who is not
well-informed and has greater opportunities, among other things, to obtain
access to better health and education. The problem becomes all the more acute
when, as mentioned earlier, information today has become a phenomenon that is
increasingly dependent on advanced technology and, consequently, the exercise
of the right conferred by the aforementioned Article 19 of the Declaration
really depends on each citizen's greater or lesser opportunity to have access
to technology on an equal footing.
I believe that a matter of such great importance requires special
treatment and attention on the part of our Organization. With that in mind,
it seems most appropriate to suggest that serious and urgent consideration be
given to the inclusion as a central focus of the World Conference on Human
Rights in 1993 the topic of citizens' information. I say "citizens'"
information because I am not referring to that other matter, relating more to
information among nations, which came to be known as the "new international
information order". Rather, I am referring to the citizens' right to
information and to the urgent need to guarantee, in principle and in reality,
equality for mankind with regard to information.
I wish to share with the Assembly my impression that, if we keep up with
history in moving along this road, we will be arming mankind against what
might be the most serious threat to democracy: the new authoritarianism, or,
if you prefer, the great dictatorship of the twenty-first century - the
perverse, systematic, sophisticated, invisible and elusive subjugation of the
citizens to the distorted and monopolistic control of information technology.
Allow me now to devote a few moments of my statement to recent
developments in my country. The curtain has just fallen on a period which is
now gone, perhaps never to return. In my country, the signs of new times are
much more visible than in other regions. Members here have themselves often
expressed that judgment and often urged and encouraged the efforts of my
people, who may now take pride in achievements that have impressed sceptics
and enlightened those whose minds were weighed down by the weary logic of the
past.
Bolivia is a nation at peace, and, collectively and individually, it is
perhaps one of the safest on the continent. It has consolidated its
democratic system and is making concordance the basic instrument of its
political endeavours.
On 9 July, all my country's political parties Government and
opposition, right and left made a solemn commitment to carry forward in the
coming months the basic tasks of modernizing the State and society through
judicial, electoral and educational reforms, reforms in the administrative and
political machinery and, finally, reforms in the Constitution itself.
How encouraging it is to have left behind the Bolivia of factionalism,
one of the nightmares of the twentieth century, and to be entering the
twenty-first century free of those shackles.
We have built, first, financial stability and, then, growth. To do this,
it was necessary to face squarely the need to carry out the in-depth reform
and modernization of the economic system. That reform stands on four
foundations: stimulating competitiveness in the economy and freeing it from
tariff barriers, subsidies and State protection; expanding the scope for
private initiative in order to achieve the broadest citizen participation in
economic growth; stimulating investment, generating employment and extending
the benefits of development to the majority of Bolivians; and transforming the
State into an efficient manager respectful of solidarity, and into the main
party responsible for infrastructure and human development.
In this way, and based on the wisdom and capabilities of its people,
Bolivia has achieved the lowest rates of inflation in South America in the
last three years. At the same time, its growth rate was one of the highest in
the region, and per capita income has grown systematically during my
Administration.
All of this has brought us to a time of happiness and harmony. For the
first time in my country's contemporary history, there are more Bolivians
coming back than leaving, and more money flowing in than flowing out of
Bolivia. Never before has so much been invested in health, education and
basic sanitation, simply because we have never had as much access as we have
today to concessional resources, which are coming to Bolivia thanks to the
international community's confidence in the responsible way in which my
country is being governed. We are building an optimistic Bolivia, a Bolivia
with a future and with international stature.
While Bolivia is a country which reaches the Atlantic through the major
watercourses of the Amazon and the Rio de la Plata, it is by history,
geography and culture a country of the Pacific Ocean. There is no better
place than this forum of peace for me to reiterate that an unjust war deprived
us of the status of a maritime nation, in which our life as a republic began,
and thereby turned Bolivia into a country without a seacoast. The Bolivian
people will never give up its aspiration to the sea and to a sovereign and
useful presence on the Pacific coast. It matters not how much effort and
sacrifice may be required in pursuit of that objective.
To this end, we have laid out a strategy of peace and integration, a
gradual and pragmatic strategy by which an appropriate solution to Bolivia's
landlocked situation can be found that could be generally and mutually
beneficial to the countries of the region. Proof of the soundness and impact
of that strategy is the outcome of the Mariscal de Santa Cruz agreements
signed with Peru on 24 January in the southern city of Ilo. Although not
encompassing the sovereignty to which we aspired, and although not in the
location which historically is rightfully ours, agreement has been reached on
a commercial and industrial duty-free zone and on administration of the port
by Bolivian and Peruvian entrepreneurs. Moreover, a tourism area of
5 kilometres of beach has been granted, and it has already been named
"Boliviamar".
Three years ago I described to the Assembly Bolivia's national strategy
to fight the production of, trafficking in and illicit consumption of
narcotics, a strategy which my Government was then beginning to implement,
asking the international community for its understanding and support. In 1989
there were reasons to fear that drug trafficking might irremediably corrode
the political and institutional system of Bolivia, that it might come to
dominate the economy as a whole and might lead, sooner or later, to escalating
violence. Although at that time there were doubts as to Bolivia's ability to
carry out the plan, today I can say categorically that cocaine traffic has
ceased to be a strategic risk for Bolivia.
Bolivia is proof that the struggle against drug trafficking not only is
possible but can also be successful. Against the temptation to yield to
discouragement and pessimism, Bolivia stands out as a symbol, as a banner of
hope and optimism. We have systematically reduced the areas devoted to coca
growing; we have reduced the production of paste and cocaine hydrochloride; we
have taken firm action in the selection of specialized personnel, following
criteria of efficiency and honesty; and we have broken up the main networks of
drug trafficking in Bolivia by means of a decree-law known as the "Repentance
Decree", as a result of which the leaders of these organizations are now in my
country's jails.
All this was possible because we managed to avoid the imposition from
outside of concepts and plans ill-suited to our national reality. On the
contrary, we forged ahead with a peaceful struggle, ruling out the
militarization of the struggle and spared the country from the confrontation
and violence which had occurred elsewhere. In the light of this unquestionably
positive picture, Bolivia asks the international community to redouble its
efforts to reduce consumption, to control chemical precursors and to increase
quantitatively and qualitatively the resources allocated to improved
functioning of alternative development mechanisms, Bolivia's substantive
contribution to the body of knowledge on this topic.
Above all, we ask most earnestly that the coca leaf not be confused with
cocaine: the coca leaf is a good thing and is an expression of an age-old
cultural tradition originating in the Andes; cocaine, by contrast, is foreign,
alien, and came from outside.
From this rostrum, I pay a tribute to all the Bolivians who made possible
the enormous advances we have achieved in this fight against one of the
cruelest and most pernicious forms of corruption in contemporary society. I
wish to express my special thanks to the self-sacrificing workers and farmers
of my country.
Tomorrow, at the offices of the Interamerican Development Bank in
Washington, intergovernmental meetings will begin with a view to defining the
composition of the governing board of the Development Fund for Indigenous
Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, created on the initiative of the
Ibero-American countries meeting at the Guadalajara and Madrid summits.
Bolivia, a country of original indigenous stock, like so many others of
our continent, asks the international community to support this programme,
which is vital for the lives of many men and women, especially as we prepare
to celebrate 1993 as the International Year for the World's Indigenous People
with the theme of "Indigenous people a new partnership".
This is the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. But for the
peoples of the Americas, and in particular the Ibero-American peoples, this
session marks the quincentennial of 1492. It is therefore a psychological
reality for us that one chapter of history is drawing to a close and another
is opening, one in which mankind will continue its tireless search,
discovering and building new worlds.
That is why Bolivia, a peaceful country of the South, which is
experiencing the profound challenges of development, is also concerned about
the fate of the industrialized North, where, following the natural euphoria
after the end of the cold war and the victory of democracy, there have been
worrying signs of uncertainty, lack of confidence and pessimism. I say I am
concerned about the North because, in contrast with the past, we are now all
living in one global political ecosystem, where threats, risks, victories and
failures have repercussions for us all.
For its part, Bolivia is prepared, together with other countries, to run
the shared risk of building a new and better world. In that endeavour, there
is only one requirement: that no one ignore anyone else.


It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Syrian delegation, to
congratulate the new President on his election to the presidency of the
forty-seventh session of the General Assembly, particularly as our two
countries and peoples enjoy bonds of traditional friendship. I should also
like to express our appreciation to your predecessor, the permanent
representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for the success and skill with
which he presided over the proceedings of the previous session of the General
Assembly. May we wish his sisterly country progress and prosperity.
I should also like to take this opportunity to reiterate to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations our confidence and our appreciation of
his unremitting efforts in the service of the international community and the
principles and objectives of the United Nations Charter. In that respect, we
value the effort that has gone into the preparation of his report entitled "An
Agenda for Peace" and many of the valuable ideas contained therein.
As is customary in this forum, we welcome the new States Members which
have joined our international Organization and hope that their new membership
will contribute to the process of enhancing its effectiveness and
strengthening its role in formulating more democratic and equitable
international relations.
For the third time, the twentieth century witnesses an important change
in the political map of the world. The change is such that schools and
libraries all over the world have become in need of a new atlas, just as they
had in the wake"of the two World Wars. We fear that, because of the
continuing upheavals in the world the designers of that new atlas may have to
leave a wide margin for possible new changes that may occur in the map of this
planet as it crosses the threshold into the twenty-first century.

Fortunately, that great change in the political map of the world has not
taken place through war, as was the case in the two previous instances.
Otherwise, it would have meant the end of all life on earth. Regrettably,
however, the change has not been totally devoid of tension and violence. It
has carried the seeds of small-scale wars that have spread here and there for
national, ethnic, religious, tribal, economic and social reasons.
At this historic juncture, the real concern is not only the number of
victims claimed by such small wars or the scale of the destruction that may
ensue, but rather, the possibility of the spread of the seeds of those small
wars, in the North as well as in the South, in the absence of a world order
that is capable of containing and addressing their causes.
This is the major challenge which faces the United Nations today. It
would be paradoxical indeed if the twentieth century, whose grand bang of
scientific and cultural achievements have been hailed by all, were to end with
the whimper of small was that are waged by people with small primitive minds
the international community cannot curb.
Many have rightly spoken of the non-implementation of United Nations
resolutions and of the paralysis of its Security Council during the years of
the cold war that used to rage between East and West. But the cold war has in
effect been over for a few years now, and its demise has been officially
declared by both sides. And yet, we find that the ultimate ambition of the
Security Council today is no longer to stop the fighting and put an end to the
massacres in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, Afghanistan and other hotbeds of
tension and conflict, but merely to try and deliver humanitarian assistance to
some of the peoples of those unfortunate countries.

The end of confrontation between East and West ought not to lead to the
end of concern for the fate of the many peoples and countries which are being
torn apart by conflicts, as is happening today in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Somalia, Afghanistan and other places; nor should it lead to the withholding
from their peoples of the assistance that would help heal their wounds and
enable them to reconstruct what has been destroyed by conflict and war.
If only a very small percentage of the sums that used to be spent by the
two camps on the cold War were channelled to the assistance of peoples of the
third world, such a small percentage would make it possible to overcome most
of the difficulties and tragedies those peoples now face and to avoid further
such disputes.
At a time when the world witnesses the disintegration of whole States and
the outbreak of civil wars and conflicts, one must appreciate the exceptional
efforts that led to saving the Lebanese people from the inferno of civil war
and helping them on the road to national reconciliation through the efforts of
the Lebanese themselves and the brotherly assistance and sacrifices of Syria.
We hope that pledges made to reconstruct what the civil war destroyed in
Lebanon and to contribute to the special fund created for that purpose will be
honoured.
Since the end of the Second World War, the Middle East has enjoyed
neither security nor stability because of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict
and its repercussions. But the convening of the Madrid conference last year
has opened for the first time, as all acknowledge, a rare and historic window
of opportunity to achieve a just and comprehensive peace based on
international legality and the resolutions of the United Nations, particularly

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978), which,
according to the Charter of the United Nations, are binding and must be
implemented by all parties to the conflict.
Almost a year has passed now since the convening of the Madrid
conference. Ten months after the conference, the whole world came to realize
that the peace talks between the Arabs and the Israelis were futile, because
of the intransigence and the evasiveness of the previous head of the Israeli
Government, who admitted publicly after his defeat in the elections that his
intention was to go on quibbling and prevaricating with the purpose of
prolonging the negotiations for 10 more years.

It is also regrettable that the latest round of peace talks was concluded
in Washington without the Israeli side changing the substance of its approach
to the question of a full withdrawal from the Golan and the other occupied
Arab territories, including Al-Quds, despite the readiness of Syria and the
other Arab parties to commit themselves to all that is required of them in
conformity with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). It
appears that the change in policies and priorities claimed by Mr. Rabin's
Government in comparison with those of Mr. Shamir's Government to date lacks
both credibility and actual application.
The fact of the matter is that the great expectations and noticeable
momentum which accompanied the latest round of negotiations were a result of
the earnest contribution of the Arab side and the great impact of the Syrian
document at both the regional and international levels. That comprehensive
document contains the bases and principles of a peaceful settlement of the
Arab-Israeli conflict in conformity with the Charter and resolutions of the
United Nations, which were the basis for the convening of the Madrid
Conference.
The international community has affirmed that the achievement of peace in
the Middle East has always been and continues to be rooted in the
inevitability of Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories
that were occupied by force and war, and in securing the legitimate national
rights of the Palestinian people.
Those in Israel who believe that total peace can be achieved without a
complete Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories are gravely
mistaken. Those who also believe that the Israeli arsenal of mass destruction

and its qualitative military edge can make it immune to the repercussions of
the end of the cold war are equally mistaken. Saturating Israel with
destructive and sophisticated weaponry cannot guarantee the true security of
Israel as long as it continues to occupy the territories of others by force
and to violate the rights of the Palestinian people, and as long as it lacks
the human compass that may guide it to the shores of peace and security.
The road to a comprehensive, just and durable peace is clear and well
defined; it remains for Israel to choose to take it. Any manoeuvres of
partial withdrawals or interim steps will not bring peace either to the region
or to Israel itself. The higher level meetings Israel demands are merely a
ploy that is meant to undermine the framework and mechanism within which the
Arab and Israeli parties met at the Madrid Peace Conference.
As declared by its leader. President Hafez Al-Assad, Syria wants an
honourable peace which our people would accept, a peace in which not a grain
of sand of our land is lost, no concession of any of our rights is made, and
without dereliction of the duty of safeguarding the dignity of our nation. We
want the peace of the brave, the peace that survives and lasts and guarantees
the interests of all. But if there are to be games and ambushes no one could
make Syria forsake its patriotic and national stand. There is no place for
capitulation in our dictionary.
We have already voiced our readiness for a complete peace in return for a
complete withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories and we reaffirm
that now. That is our challenge to Israel from this rostrum, a challenge that
has found no response to this day.

If comprehensiveness and justice were observed in arms control it would
undoubtedly contribute to the consolidation of the security and stability we
all long for. The subject of arms control would come within reach and be more
effective in ensuring security and stability in the Middle East if it were
based on the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, with nuclear
weapons first and foremost, in accordance with criteria which have no bias in
favour of one State at the expense of another and which apply to all countries
of the region without exception within the framework of the United Nations and
under its auspices.
Syria has never spared any effort in supporting United Nations
resolutions and conventions relating to disarmament, particularly the
non-proliferation Treaty to which Syria has acceded. Syria also signed the
non-proliferation Treaty safeguards agreement on 25 February 1992. Syria has
signed the Treaty on the prohibition of biological weapons and has
consistently supported the initiative to make the Middle East region free of
all nuclear weapons. Syria was the first officially to suggest at the 1989
Paris Conference on chemical weapons that the Middle East should be free of
all chemical and biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
At a time when the whole world knows that Israel is the only State in the
region to possess nuclear weapons in addition to its possession of other
weapons of mass destruction, Israel has to date refused to accede to the
non-proliferation Treaty and has also refused for decades to allow inspection
of its nuclear installations and continues to do so today.
The logical option for all peoples of the world is to ensure security for
all through complete disarmament and the elimination of all weapons of mass
destruction. The measures adopted by the Conference on Disarmament in

relation to the conclusion of a draft convention on the prohibition,
development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and their
destruction will remain short of realizing the ambitions of the international
community so long as they are not coupled with a similar prohibition on
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
The situation in South Africa continues to be a source of deep concern
for my country. While we express our satisfaction over the repeal and
amendment of some of the basic laws of apartheid, we would also like to
express our deep concern over the persistence of repression and violence that
the Government of South Africa continues to perpetrate against the population,
at a great cost in victims to that population. Syria strongly supports the
demands of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa for the
establishment of a democratic and non-racial society.
Concerning Cyprus, we welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General to
find a just and lasting solution to the Cypriot problem based on United
Nations resolutions and taking into account the interests of the parties to
the conflict.
Concerning the Korean peninsula, we reaffirm our support for the efforts
of Democratic Korea to reunite the Korean peninsula peacefully and through
negotiations. This would lead to prosperity for the entire Korean people
while consolidating peace and stability in North-East Asia.

In view of all the issues and problems with which the international
community is occupied, some of which I have mentioned in my statement, the
peoples and countries of the world are looking to our international
Organization to contribute towards the establishment of a world of peace and
security. We believe that, in order to be able to realize the aspirations and
hopes of the peoples of the world for instituting a new world order in which
there is no aggression or occupation and which is based on international
legality and the rules of international law, the United Nations must apply the
provisions of its own Charter and implement its resolutions without bias,
selectivity or double standards. As we find ourselves on the threshold of the
twenty-first century, we hope to be able to reach a world of peace and justice
in which stability and prosperity would prevail.