It is a great pleasure for me to
congratulate Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko on his election to
the presidency of the General Assembly. I am confident
that under his able leadership, the work of the fifty-
second session of the General Assembly will be a
success. I should also like to express our appreciation to
Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia for the way in
which he presided over the General Assembly during its
previous session. I also express my warm congratulations
to His Excellency Kofi Annan on his election to the post
of Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The relative euphoria created by the end of the cold
war is being replaced by a sense of realism. Although the
possibility of a global confrontation has been considerably
reduced, ensuring security and preserving stability
continue to be a major concern for the international
community. We are witnessing the eruption of conflicts
and serious tensions of a regional character as well as
within individual States.
Critical disparities in economic and social conditions
exist around the globe. Large segments of the world’s
population live in conditions of dire poverty. Achieving
sustainable development remains a great challenge for the
world community. On the other hand, the contemporary
values we share, such as democracy, pluralism, tolerance,
human rights and gender equality, require constant
attention and effort.
14

Against this backdrop, international and regional
organizations and, in particular, the United Nations, are in
the process of redefining their role and functions in order
to cope with new realities and challenges. The discussions
and recent efforts to reform the United Nations have
produced creative recommendations. Here, I wish to
congratulate the Secretary-General for his comprehensive
report. The far-reaching and substantive reform programme
proposed therein satisfies our expectations. We strongly
support the reform programme. On the other hand, we also
share the serious concerns of the Secretary-General with
regard to the need to put the Organization on a sound
financial basis.
We commend the Secretary-General for attaching the
highest priority to the goals of alleviating poverty and
enhancing development. This is indispensable for the
achievement and maintenance of peace and security, both
within and among nations. In this context, we appreciate the
approach taken by the Secretary-General that the envisaged
coordination of the Development Group must be done so as
not to weaken in any way the authority and independence
of the institutions in question, the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in particular.
Making human rights an integral part of all relevant
United Nations operations is also a commendable goal. We
are pleased to see an eminent personality at the head of
United Nations activities in the human rights field. The
fiftieth anniversary, in 1998, of the adoption by the General
Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
will provide the opportunity to reiterate our commitment to
promote human rights all over the world.
Elevating the standard of human rights to its highest
level is the foremost duty and obligation of each State
towards its own people. I should like to draw attention to
the human rights problems and to the discrimination faced
in particular by migrant workers and their families in some
developed countries. The protection and promotion of their
human, economic, social, cultural and political rights are
matters of major concern in the human rights field.
In this respect, Turkey supports the idea of a world
conference on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance. It would be a milestone in the decades-
long struggle waged by the United Nations against racism
and racial discrimination.
Turkey also supports the efforts envisaged in the
reform programme to enhance the capabilities of the United
Nations to deal with transnational organized crime,
narcotics and terrorism. One of the most important threats
our world faces today is problems related to drug abuse.
The special session of the United Nations to be held next
year will enable us to chart the way for the new measures
that must be taken in view of the threat posed by drug
trafficking.
The scourge of our age, no doubt, is terrorism. It is
a threat to human rights and democratic institutions. It
violates the most fundamental of all human rights: the
right to life. It does not recognize boundaries.
International cooperation is imperative in the fight against
terrorism, and countries that refrain from participating in
this cooperation must be condemned by the international
community. We believe that the time has come to draft a
global treaty on combating terrorism. In the same vein,
we think that terrorist crimes should be included within
the competence of the international criminal court that is
to be established.
The Secretary-General has proposed significant
measures that bring the arms-control agenda to the
forefront of multilateral cooperation. Renewed emphasis
should be placed on the work of the Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva, with a view to ending
production of fissile material for weapons purposes.
The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms
should become an effective tool for monitoring arms
transfers. Likewise, the international community should
exert vigorous efforts to end illicit arms trafficking as a
key element in the international struggle against terrorism.
Peacekeeping stands out as one of the most
significant undertakings of the United Nations. The
development of the peacekeeping capability of the United
Nations remains a pressing need, and one that Turkey
supports wholeheartedly. Turkey has taken part, and
continues to participate, in several peacekeeping
operations.
The ongoing work aimed at improving the
representative character of the Security Council,
increasing the Council’s effectiveness and efficiency and
adapting it to current realities of the international
community is of particular importance. Reform of the
Security Council constitutes the most serious attempt in
years to enhance the role and moral authority not only of
the Council, but also of the United Nations as a world
organization.
15

We have to ensure that the envisaged enlargement and
future composition of the Security Council will correspond
to the expectations of the largest possible segment of the
United Nations membership. The reform process has to take
into consideration the fundamental changes which have
taken place on the international scene and recognize the
ability and readiness of a group of States to assume a
greater and more effective role. These States should be
given the opportunity to serve on the Security Council more
frequently and on a more regular basis. Security Council
reform is too important to be tied to the settlement of other
issues; it must satisfy the general membership and enhance
the role and authority of the Organization.
Located at the crossroads of three continents and
several regions, including the Balkans, the Middle East, the
Caucasus, the Mediterranean and Central Asia, Turkey
stands ready to play an even greater role in the maintenance
of peace, security and stability in its wider region. Today,
the historical and cultural attributes of this vast geography,
more than ever, find expression in Turkey’s foreign policy
in terms of hopes and opportunities.
A return to normalcy in Iraq and its reintegration with
the international community are of vital importance for all
countries of the region. Turkey supports the preservation of
the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Iraq. Turkey has been fully complying with the United
Nations sanctions regime imposed on Iraq. On the other
hand, it is a fact that the sanctions have also produced
totally unforeseen and negative effects on the economies of
third countries as well as on the economy of Iraq. Turkey
stands at the forefront of those countries which have been
directly and most adversely affected by the sanctions
regime. This unacceptable situation reminds us of the very
pertinent remark of the former Secretary-General that
“Sanctions are a measure taken collectively by the
United Nations to maintain or restore international
peace and security. The costs involved ... should be
borne ... by all Member States and not exclusively by
the few who have the misfortune to be neighbours or
major economic partners of the target country.”
[A/50/60, para. 73]
We expect the Security Council to expeditiously consider
Turkey’s application to the sanctions committee, and to take
appropriate action.
The Middle East peace process has been the single
most important positive development in that fragile region
in the recent past. However, events have recently taken,
rather unexpectedly, an unfortunate and dangerous turn.
Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories,
carried out despite the relevant Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions and despite the provisions
of the peace accords, and abhorrent terrorist activities by
the enemies of peace have placed the peace process under
a very severe strain. We urge the parties to do their
utmost to establish mutual trust, without which it will be
impossible to attain the objectives of the peace process.
Afghanistan is another conflict area where the
international community has so far been unable to help
bring about a just and lasting solution. At present, even
the national unity of the Afghan people is at stake. It is
most unfortunate that the warring factions have been
fervently pursuing the military option. Regrettably, one of
the major obstacles to convincing the factions that a
military solution is unattainable is the continuing supply
of weapons, equipment and ammunition, along with
military involvement from outside.
My country has close historical ties with Afghanistan
and the Afghan people. We feel very strongly about the
independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and
national unity of Afghanistan. Taking this opportunity, I
wish to reiterate Turkey’s readiness to host, in
cooperation with the United Nations, an intra-Afghan
meeting if and when all the parties are ready to
participate.
Turkey attaches particular importance to bringing its
historical, close relations of friendship and cooperation
with Balkan countries to the highest level. We support the
multilateral initiatives aimed at securing peace, stability
and cooperation in South-East Europe. Bosnia and
Herzegovina continues to be a focus of the international
community. The preservation of the independence,
sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Bosnia and
Herzegovina is a continuing responsibility undertaken by
the United Nations. The full implementation of the
Dayton Peace Agreement has not yet been secured. While
the Federation has been working hard to implement the
Peace Agreement, other quarters have been obstructing
the whole process. The successful effort in July on the
part of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) to apprehend and
bring before the Tribunal war crimes suspects who remain
at large was a commendable move. In order to achieve
reconciliation and ensure peace and security in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, it is essential to prove that crimes
committed will not go unpunished. The return of refugees
and displaced persons to their homes constitutes another
16

essential element for achieving lasting peace and stability
in the country.
SFOR, to which my country is a troop contributor, has
played a significant role in Bosnia for the maintenance of
peace and order since the signing of the Peace Agreement.
We believe that the continued presence of an international
force in the area is crucial for durable peace.
Albania and its people have passed through very
difficult times. Ensuring internal peace and stability in
Albania was a prerequisite for the preservation of peace and
stability in the whole region. The multinational protection
force, in which, again, my country took part, succeeded in
restoring stability and order in the country. It was thus
possible for the Albanian people to hold the parliamentary
elections that paved the way for the resolution of the crisis.
However, Albania still faces a difficult road on the
way to full administrative, social and economic recovery.
The need for concerted international support remains.
Sharing close historical and cultural ties with the Albanian
people, Turkey will continue to be of support to Albania.
In our relations with Greece, our principal objective is
to promptly tackle, through a substantive and result-oriented
dialogue, the issues, mostly related to the Aegean, that still
stand between our two countries. To this end, we have
made several appeals to Greece to agree to a dialogue and
to begin a process with a view to settling our differences.
We do not rule out any agreed method of peaceful
settlement of our differences. Furthermore, we have
unilaterally implemented a number of confidence-building
measures in the hope that they would be reciprocated. We
expect that the group of “Wisemen”, consisting of two non-
governmental personalities from Turkey and Greece,
respectively, will be able to finally meet without further
delay. This group has the task of preparing a report to be
submitted to both Governments with non-binding
recommendations for dealing with the issues.
We also eagerly await the translation into concrete
deeds, to promote better relations between our two
countries, of the understanding reached during the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Madrid
last July. Delaying this process by linking it to pre-
conditions or artificial issues will not serve the interests of
either country.
It is evident that our bilateral problems cannot be
resolved by the effort of Turkey alone, and that mutual
commitment and the display of goodwill by both parties
are imperative.
The Caucasus, as a gateway between East and West,
attracts world-wide attention politically and economically.
We attach the highest significance to peace and stability,
as well as to the preservation and consolidation of the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
countries of that neighbouring region. In this context, it is
vitally important to bring about a just and lasting solution
to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia on the
basis of international law. The Nagorny-Karabakh dispute
still stands out as the principal obstacle to peace, security
and enhanced bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the
region, since more than one fifth of Azeri territory
remains under occupation. We urge that the Minsk
process and the decisions reached in that process will be
taken seriously by all parties and that they will be
implemented.
The efforts made within this context by the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE)/Minsk Group should be carefully considered by
all parties concerned. As a member of the Group, Turkey
will continue to contribute to these efforts.
We welcome the recent August meeting in Tbilisi
between the parties to the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict
and the signing of a statement by the leaders on the
peaceful and mutually acceptable solution to the conflict.
In this regard, I would like to stress that Turkey is
committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Georgia within its internationally recognized borders as
stated in the Lisbon document of the OSCE.
The Cyprus question has been on the agenda of the
Security Council for almost 34 years. This roughly
corresponds to the presence of the United Nations Peace-
keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) in the island. It may
be high time to find a real answer to why a solution has
eluded us all this time in spite of the dramatic changes
that have occurred both on the international scene and in
Cyprus, and despite all the commendable efforts of
successive United Nations Secretaries-General.
After so many years it would be wrong, I believe, to
continue to link a 34-year-old failure to the lack of
political will or to the intransigence of one side or the
other. We should ask ourselves where we failed, why the
mistrust is still so deep in the island and whether we have
made the right diagnosis of this problem.
17

There are two distinct peoples, two separate
administrations and two democracies on the island. Along
with these realities, bicommunality, bizonality and the
maintenance of the 1960 system of guarantees should be
considered as incontestable foundations for a settlement. It
is obvious that reluctance to recognize the realities in the
island, and the tendency to apply pressure to one side alone,
have not led us to a negotiated solution. The last two
rounds of talks, in Troutbeck and in Glion, have solidified
this perception. We do believe that the lessons of the past
and current developments on the international scene should
compel us to adopt a realistic approach to the Cypriot issue.
The establishment of an equilibrium between the legal and
political status of the two sides to the dispute could be a
starting point for a rethinking process.
Time is of the essence in initiating such a process
since one can foresee that in early 1998 a chain of events
might hinder efforts to find a negotiated settlement, and
further increase the tension both on the island and in the
region. As witnessed in the recent face-to-face talks, the
pursuit of European Union membership by the Greek
Cypriot side has become the main impediment to progress,
rendering the negotiating process increasingly meaningless
and an agreed settlement even more elusive. Turkey and the
Turkish Cypriot side firmly believe that efforts to carry
forward this process will cast a shadow on the talks and
might destroy the very foundation of the negotiation
process.
On various occasions, we have made our position clear
on the issue of European Union membership of Cyprus.
The 1959 and 1960 Treaties on Cyprus established an
internal institutional balance between the two communities
of Cyprus and, simultaneously, an external balance of
interests between Turkey and Greece in their relationship
with Cyprus. These Treaties unequivocally preclude the
membership of Cyprus in any international organization, or
political or economic union in which both Turkey and
Greece are not members. Therefore, from a legal point of
view, Cyprus can join the European Union only after a
solution and simultaneously with Turkey. From a political
point of view, this also appears to be the only viable
outcome. We continue to entertain the hope that those who
are concerned will act with an awareness of their historical
responsibility, as the time approaches toward a decision on
an issue which will have a determining effect on the future
course of events in Cyprus.
The deployment of S-300 missiles to southern Cyprus
is another gloomy prospect. Coupled with ambitious
rearmament efforts that the Greek Cypriot side has
embarked upon, the purchase of highly sophisticated
missiles aims at jeopardizing the security of the Turkish
Cypriot people and of Turkey. We sincerely hope that in
the end wisdom will prevail and this project, which may
seriously affect peace and stability in the entire region,
will be discontinued.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece, in his
statement earlier this afternoon, referred in a misleading
way to my country and to the Cyprus issue. My
delegation will speak in exercise of its right of reply at a
later stage in response to the allegations contained in that
statement.
The challenges of building and preserving peace and
of achieving development are closely linked. The United
Nations, having successfully ended the first 50 years of
its existence, is today well poised to take up these tasks.
It is up to each Member State to make the best effort to
contribute to this process. Turkey is determined to do its
share. We sincerely hope that this session of the General
Assembly will mark one more important step towards the
realization of regional and global peace, stability, security,
cooperation, solidarity and prosperity on the eve of a new
millennium.


I wish first of all to
congratulate you, Sir, on your unanimous election as
President of the General Assembly at its fifty-second
session. There is no doubt that your election to this high
position is an acknowledgment of your personal competence
and of the commitment of your country, Ukraine, to the
United Nations and to the principles enshrined in its
Charter.
I also wish to pay tribute to your predecessor,
Ambassador Razali, who discharged his responsibilities
with great wisdom and dedication.
Our appreciation also goes to the Secretary-General,
Mr. Kofi Annan, for the great efforts he is making to
ensure the revitalization of the United Nations. In his
report (A/51/950) to the Assembly entitled “Renewing the
United Nations: A Programme for Reform”, the
Secretary-General has proposed measures that Member
States may take to democratize the United Nations and to
enhance its effectiveness as an instrument with which to
deal with the challenges facing us as we enter the twenty-
first century. I wish to assure the Secretary-General of
Ethiopia’s full support for his initiative.
Ethiopia strongly believes that the reform and
expansion of the Security Council, which is long overdue,
is at the heart of the United Nations reform process.
Broad consensus has been established that the reform and
expansion of the Council must reflect the realities of the
world we live in today. The African position on the issue
was articulated at the thirty-third Summit of the Heads of
State or Government of the member States of the
Organization of African Unity, held in Harare in June this
year. Ethiopia fully supports the African position.
This annual occasion affords us the opportunity to
reiterate our commitment to the United Nations, to what
it represents and to all efforts designed to address our
common challenges.
For obvious reasons, some of the common dangers we
have faced have receded. The cold war, which by
common consensus represented a threat to the very
survival of humanity, is more or less behind us. There
should therefore be far greater opportunity today for
effective international cooperation in many spheres, and
especially for real and tangible steps towards the
realization of genuine partnership in the fight against
poverty and to enable those determined to remove the
obstacles to their development to achieve their goals and
fulfil the dreams and the hopes of their peoples.
Peace and security can hardly be made durable and
sustainable when conditions faced by the majority of
12

peoples in the developing countries generate hopelessness
and when deprivations suffered today are made all the more
painful because existing trends, instead of providing
consolation, promise more of the same, or worse. There is
no more appropriate time than now, when we are preparing
to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, to renew our commitment
and to rededicate ourselves to the realization of full respect
of human rights in all their dimensions — civil, political,
economic and social rights, including the right to
development and to be free from the shackles of poverty.
For Ethiopia, the eradication of poverty and the
promotion of human rights are the cornerstones of the
country’s development strategies and democratic reforms.
In the immediate human rights programme, the Federal
Parliament plans to establish, as stipulated in the Ethiopian
Federal Constitution, a national human rights commission
and an ombudsman early next year.
I wish to take this opportunity to bring to the attention
of this Assembly the fact that leading members of the
repressive military regime that ruled Ethiopia in the 1970s
and 1980s are being tried for war crimes and crimes against
humanity. These public trials are the biggest since
Nuremberg. However, Ethiopian courts have been denied
the opportunity to bring to justice all the perpetrators of
these crimes because many of those who should be tried in
Ethiopia are given safe haven in other countries, in
contravention of the provisions of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We
call on the States concerned to cooperate with Ethiopia and
to take appropriate measures, in accordance with
international humanitarian law, to ensure that those who are
responsible for crimes against humanity are brought to
justice.
International cooperation and the benefits that are
drawn from it, whether through bilateral or multilateral
means, cannot be a substitute for what individual countries
must do to ensure that sustainable development is achieved
and economic growth is realized. The responsibility to
extricate our countries from the miseries of poverty, in the
case of those of us to whom this applies, lies with us. Aid
alone, whatever its nature or quantity, would not do, even
if it were to be made available.
But it is critically important that the international
economic environment evolve towards providing an even
and level playing field, most particularly for those who, for
various reasons — whether on account of their own
mistakes or because of complex historical reasons, some of
which are not of their own making — have stayed behind
and have failed to put their countries on a track of
sustainable development.
In this regard, we cannot but admit that not enough
is being done, although much is said and promised. The
old divisions might have been consigned irrevocably to
the past, but we cannot pretend that, though we continue
to talk about our common humanity and the common
village we occupy, the other divisions in the world are
being addressed, let alone bridged. It would suffice just to
look at the situation of poverty in the world today and the
lukewarm effort to combat and to eradicate it
internationally. The prediction that the level of poverty
will continue to grow in Africa is a challenge to the
international community, as it is a reflection of the dire
condition of the continent.
The need to ensure food security for all should by
no means be an impossible task to achieve for the world
we live in. Here as well, individual countries facing this
problem have to assume their responsibility in the first
instance, but the international community should also
have a role to play, including in the fight against
corruption — a disease which, as we all realize, has an
international aspect in its grand dimension, and is
therefore not amenable to solutions taken at the national
level alone. We in Ethiopia have made important progress
over the last few years in building the basis for food
security for our peoples. But, as should be obvious, no
guarantee can be secured on food security as long as
production is totally dependent, as is the case in Ethiopia,
on rain-fed agriculture and when for a variety of reasons
the available water is not utilized for irrigation purposes.
It is in this connection that the equitable utilization
of transboundary rivers becomes an issue that should be
accorded the utmost urgency. Regional cooperation on
international rivers will remain impossible if calculations
based on a zero-sum outcome favouring one side or
another govern the attitude of parties that could otherwise
objectively benefit from even-handed cooperation. With
respect to the question of the Nile waters, which affects
Ethiopia directly and regarding which there has been no
effective cooperation among the riparians, we wish to call
on those involved to commit themselves to real and
genuine regional cooperation which is based on a win-win
perspective, ensuring outcomes that are fair, equitable and
just. A status quo which is unjust cannot endure; nor can
it serve as a basis for building genuine cooperation.
13

We are fully aware that at the level of the United
Nations, there have been a number of initiatives designed
to help address the economic and social problems faced by
developing countries and to mitigate the effects of poverty
and the impact of those conditions hindering the realization
of sustainable economic development. However, despite
good intentions, their practical implementation has always
been half-hearted and, at best, less than satisfactory and
therefore a source of disappointment. This applies to the
United Nations Programme of Action for the Least
Developed Countries for the 1990s, to the United Nations
New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s
(UN-NADAF) and to other initiatives. It is our hope that
the United Nations System-wide Special Initiative on Africa
will not meet a similar fate.
This should not be regarded as criticism aimed at the
United Nations. The Organization has no life and no
activity of its own independent of Member States. It is we
Member States that have not sufficiently seized the
opportunity opened up by the end of the cold-war division
of the world and the international tension engendered by
that state of affairs.
Not only within the United Nations but in general,
both in the bilateral and the multilateral areas, the
international cooperation being made available to the
developing world today is not commensurate with the
challenges faced by those countries, nor does it do justice
to the tremendous effort made by those countries, including
many in Africa, to make their economies business-friendly.
A growing number of countries on our continent,
including my own country, Ethiopia, have taken decisive
measures to liberalize their economies, to cut Government
spending, to institute sound macroeconomic policies and to
enhance the role of the private sector and civil society.
Because of these serious efforts at belt-tightening and
monetary and fiscal discipline, there have been some
encouraging developments over the past four years with
regard to economic growth in a number of African
countries, including Ethiopia. In my own country, for the
first time in more than two decades, the economy has
begun to grow, with a growth rate of over 10 per cent in
gross domestic product having been achieved in 1996. The
average rate of growth over the past five years has been
over 7 per cent.
In the area of governance and democratization, there
is little doubt that, despite some setbacks, we in Africa
seem to have made substantial progress over the past seven
or so years. These gains need to be consolidated and
enriched at a pace that can realistically be sustained, in
conformity with the principles of indigenous ownership.
On the other hand, it would be stating the obvious to
say that our economies have been slated to go on
operating in an international economic environment that
is hardly friendly to growth and sustainable development.
The obstacles are diverse, and they are the same ones as
we have been reiterating in gatherings such as this and
whenever other opportunities have presented themselves.
The challenges we face involve market opportunities for
our commodities, and they are also related to
protectionism, unfavourable terms of trade and the
difficulty associated with attracting a sufficient level of
foreign direct investment. But most of all the challenges
we face involve issues related to the debt overhang and to
debt-servicing obligations. If there is one major
impediment to the development of countries such as
Ethiopia, that impediment must be identified as the debt
overhang, which continues to necessitate the diversion of
so many resources from productive activities that could
otherwise have accelerated growth and development.
We cannot, of course, be oblivious to the many
proposals for debt relief and to the number of positive,
albeit inadequate, steps that have been taken in this
regard. We recognize and appreciate the efforts made by
the Group of 7, the latest being the steps taken and the
promises made at the Lyon Summit and since most
particularly the promise made in connection with debt-
relief measures for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
Debt.
But even then, we cannot ignore the irony and the
paradox we encounter with respect to debt relief. More
often than not, to qualify for some of these debt-relief
measures countries are expected to fulfil and meet
conditions that are not absorbable even by economies that
are far more advanced.
There is little doubt that one of the key prerequisites
for sustainable economic development is ownership of
one’s economic programme. However, the conditionalities
that accompany debt- relief measures have been
undermining ownership, thereby causing the loss of
possibilities of adopting policies based on a realistic and
appropriate assessment of local and specific conditions.
Thus, those condemned to a huge debt overhang which
has become unbearable are faced with a Hobson’s choice:
debt relief with renunciation of ownership, or ownership
with no relief.
14

What we need in this day and age are genuine
partnership and international cooperation based at least on
commitments to a level playing field and to conditions that
do not require those in the developing world to face
impossible choices. We are indeed hopeful that some of the
latest initiatives that countries are in the process of taking
bilaterally and the emerging trends encouraging renewed
focus on Africa, such as the ministerial-level meeting of the
Security Council convened last week, will help to increase
the international community’s sensitivity to the development
challenges of Africa.
Genuine partnership is required to make sustainable
development a reality in Africa. We hope that the
Secretary-General next his report to the Security Council
and the General Assembly next February, will forward
concrete recommendations that would spare us a repetition
of past disappointments.
It may not always be appropriate to see an immediate
causal link between poverty and lack of economic
development, on the one hand, and conflict and lack of
security, including terrorism, on the other. But there is little
doubt that the despair, hopelessness and malaise engendered
by poverty and economic and social difficulties provide the
fuel for ensuring the degeneration into all-out fratricidal
war of political frictions, whatever their sources, with
consequent social breakdown and the implosion of societies.
We have seen too many times that once societies have
imploded and State institutions have disintegrated, picking
up the pieces becomes extremely difficult and a nearly
impossible task. Look at Somalia.
But even so, Africa has made some progress. The
nightmare in Liberia is over, thanks to the immense
sacrifices made by the members of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS). New hope
is also generated by the demise of the Mobutu regime and
by the entry onto the scene of the Democratic Republic of
Congo, whose Government and people need the support and
the solidarity of the international community and of the
United Nations. Despite some setbacks in Burundi, the
countries of the region and the facilitator, Mwalimu Julius
Nyerere, continue to persevere in their efforts to help bring
about a resolution of the conflict in that country.
We are pleased and encouraged that the effort being
made by Mr. James Baker in Western Sahara is showing
some important progress, and we are hopeful that the day
may not be too far off when it will be possible to hold a
free and fair referendum in Western Sahara. I wish to
associate myself with the Secretary- General in
congratulating the parties to the conflict on the positive
results they have achieved so far towards finding a
durable solution to the conflict. In the same spirit, I
would like to call on them to continue direct dialogue and
to speed up the implementation of their agreements.
With respect to the situation in the Middle East, we
are profoundly disappointed with the increasing
complications that the peace process has encountered. It
is our ardent hope that the confidence which had emerged
earlier will be rekindled and that the troubled region will
find durable peace on the basis of justice for those to
whom it has been denied and security for all.
Apart from the conflict in southern Sudan, regarding
which the member States of the Intergovernmental
Authority on Development (IGAD) have continued to
provide their assistance for the peaceful resolution of the
problem and the reversals of the gains in Sierra Leone
and the Comoros, the major conflict in Africa which has
remained intractable is the one the people of Somalia are
facing. Here too, important progress has been made and
the opportunities for making a real breakthrough have
been created which the Somalis can ill afford to squander.
The framework for such a breakthrough has been made
possible by the creation of the National Salvation Council,
which is now preparing to hold a national reconciliation
conference soon.
We all recall how many resources were spent by the
United Nations for peace in Somalia. Now, with a small
fraction of the resources and the efforts deployed earlier
by the United Nations, the international community can
position itself to assist the realization of national
reconciliation and peace in that war-torn country. The
process of peacemaking in Somalia is at a very critical
juncture. The international community and the United
Nations should not keep their distance from the effort for
peace in Somalia.
The IGAD countries are determined to see to it that
this process succeeds. The support of the Organization of
African Unity and of our partners has been indispensable
in this exercise, particularly in connection with the effort
to ensure that those like Mr. Hussein Aideed are brought
on board the peace process. It is our firm view that no
one should be allowed to preempt and scuttle this process,
and the unequivocal support of the United Nations for the
ongoing peace process spearheaded by IGAD is indeed
critical at this stage.
15

We all recall how the proliferation of initiatives for
peace in Somalia created complications in the past and
how, as a result, it was difficult for the international
community to speak with one voice for peace in that
country. There is today a much improved situation which,
however, needs to be maintained and consolidated, for
which close coordination between the United Nations, OAU
and the IGAD countries is an absolute necessity.
Since the countries of the region have been made by
proximity to see no luxury in the continuing lack of central
authority in that country, they have chosen to work on the
basis of the maxim that a less than good Government is
better than none at all in Somalia. The consequence of the
absence of central authority in Somalia has been the growth
of forces, including from outside the region, bent on
ensuring that chaos is continued and even expanded in the
country and in the region — all the more reason, therefore,
for the United Nations and the international community to
do more to help the countries of the region and IGAD
succeed in the effort they are making for peace and national
reconciliation in Somalia.
In this regard, I wish to pay tribute to Secretary-
General Kofi Annan for the steps he has taken to revitalize
the United Nations role in Somalia and for the initiative he
has taken to find ways of maximizing the support of the
international community and of the United Nations for the
ongoing peace process in Somalia. It is our hope that the
steps that will be taken on the basis of the
recommendations of the Secretary-General’s Envoy will
ensure greater support of the international community for
the IGAD peace initiative and bring about a more effective
coordination between the external actors. We strongly
believe that the Secretary-General’s proposed trust fund for
Somalia will go a long way towards providing support to
the peace process.
In this connection, I wish also to mention the
OAU/IGAD joint mission to Somalia scheduled to take
place this month. The explicit aim of this joint mission is
to make the Bossaso Reconciliation Conference
comprehensive and all-inclusive by encouraging all parties
to participate and to convey a clear and unequivocal
message that no group has the veto power over peace in
Somalia.
Our subregion, the Horn of Africa, has been one of
the regions of the world most affected by the consequences
of war. The damage inflicted has been immense. Our region
needs a respite and a peaceful period to make up for the
lost time. Because it is a region in which deadly and
prolonged wars were conducted, weapons are easily
available and landmines strewn all over the place. In
Ethiopia alone, it is estimated that there are over 1.5
million anti-personnel landmines, which continue to kill
and maim innocent people, including women and
children. In this connection, we attach great importance to
the adoption by the recent Oslo Conference of the draft
treaty on the ban on anti-personnel landmines. We appeal
to those who remain outside the Ottawa process to sign
the draft convention in December this year, so that it can
be an effective instrument for getting rid of these deadly
weapons.
As a founding Member of the United Nations,
Ethiopia has always been unreserved in fulfilling its
commitment to the Organization and in upholding the
principles of its Charter. My country has also been a
beneficiary of various programmes of the United Nations
system. Accordingly, the increasing effectiveness of the
Organization in all areas and the realization of universal
peace and security are goals we cherish deeply.
I wish to conclude by expressing the hope that the
United Nations and the international community will not
miss the opportunities that have been created since the
beginning of this decade for fostering effective
international cooperation, eradicating poverty and
realizing sustainable development in those regions of the
world that have not yet achieved it.


On behalf of the Brazilian
delegation, I would like to congratulate you, my dear
colleague, Hennadiy Udovenko, the Foreign Minister of
Ukraine, on your election as President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-second session. Brazil has a significant
and active community of Ukrainian origin. We Brazilians
are thus very glad to see this session headed by a
distinguished son of the Ukraine, a country that is close to
us.
I want to express my recognition to the Permanent
Representative of Malaysia, Ambassador Razali Ismail, for
the way he conducted the work of the fifty-first session.
Ambassador Razali's dynamic presidency paved the way,
through extensive consultation, for an imaginative and
comprehensive proposal to advance Security Council
reform.
I also pay tribute to our new Secretary-General, Mr.
Kofi Annan, chosen to oversee the political and
administrative challenges of modernization. He has been the
focus of justifiable expectation on the part of the
international community at a difficult moment in the life of
our Organization.
We welcome the Secretary-General's proposals for
reform and institutional strengthening as a sign of renewed
vitality within the United Nations. These proposals and
Ambassador Razali's contribution will certainly warrant
close attention in the General Assembly and in parallel
consultation. We will help to consolidate a new spirit that
should inspire our Organization. This new spirit is called
leadership - that driving force of history altering the
course of events within countries and in the international
scenario, opening new horizons, giving hope to the peoples
of the world, seeing movement where some can only
stand still.
Ambassador Razali and Secretary-General Kofi
Annan have, in a way, revived the leadership of the
creators of the United Nations. They have shown the
same idealism in establishing goals and pragmatism in
carrying them out. It was also the leadership of men such
as Dag Hammarskjöld and Brazilian statesman Oswaldo
Aranha, twice President of this Assembly, that often led
the United Nations to a decisive role as a factor of change
in international relations.
This kind of leadership has given the world a forum
without parallel in history, a stage for negotiation and a
political force in favour of international peace and
security. Although the United Nations has not always
been able to prevent or to deter conflict, it has certainly
reduced its occurrence and avoided some of its more
serious consequences. For this reason, the United Nations
has been a mandatory reference, a sign of hope and a
moral force for world public opinion.
We are witnessing today the rebirth of this
leadership, feeling its effects through a remarkable change
in the heart and soul of our Organization. There is greater
optimism. There is greater motivation among delegates
and staff. There is greater expectation on the part of many
Governments. A new atmosphere of hope embraces the
United Nations. This is something we must nurture and
promote - something we must filter to the public in
order to renew the trust of the international community in
our Organization.
The agenda of the fifty-second session is vast and
reveals the continuing complexity and the numerous
conflicts of interests that animate international relations in
our times. A new international dynamic combines three
positive impulses: first, modernization and political and
economic opening in most countries; secondly, economic
integration in regional contexts, with multiple political
and security benefits; and thirdly, the internationalization
of the economy on a global scale.
These impulses tend to generate, foster and
consolidate international peace and security. They are
based on confidence and understanding and should allow
us to prosper and achieve the desired material and
spiritual results. Economic integration is increasingly the
great bulwark of international peace and cooperation. It
must be given emphasis and further promoted.
4

Precisely because of its many political and economic
benefits, integration is a defining trait of South America's
reality, a direct consequence of democracy and economic
freedom. The Southern Cone Common Market
(MERCOSUR), a new and powerful impetus for
development in the region, is an example of the importance
of integration. With democracy firmly rooted and a
dynamic process of integration, South America has a
reduced potential for conflict. It has the lowest rates of
military spending in the world and is following an
economic course based on strict government budget
controls. Our priorities are stability and development. Arms
purchases are compatible with the defense needs of Latin
American countries. They are aimed at replacing obsolete
or exhausted equipment. Recently announced measures in
the strategic-military domain will not affect these
fundamental parameters.
The concrete interests that bring together the countries
of South America - trade, investment and the
reinforcement of our international standing through
MERCOSUR - are an unyielding factor of unity and
cohesion. There is no threat of military destabilization in
Latin America. There is no danger of an arms race in the
absence of political, economic and strategic conditions for
such. A regional initiative towards self-imposed limitations
on conventional arms purchases is therefore unjustified. It
would be tantamount to disarming those already disarmed.
Our preoccupation, on the other hand, should be the
fight against the arms trade that sustains organized crime
and drug trafficking. This is the real and grave problem
perpetuating a major source of instability that has,
unfortunately, also affected our region severely. Only
determined and coordinated action on the part of the
international community, especially through tighter controls
on the production and selling of weapons in private hands,
can curb or even suppress this trade; which feeds crime
cartels and leads to violence, fear and desperation. Brazil
strongly urges all countries, and particularly those in the
Western Hemisphere, to intensify cooperation in the fight
against arms trafficking.
We have taken great strides in areas of concern and
growing visibility. Disarmament and, most specifically,
efforts towards the elimination of anti-personnel landmines
have increasingly held the attention of the international
community. Today, we can speak of significant
accomplishments, such as the signing of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the willingness of an
overwhelming majority to make firm commitments,
expressed at the Oslo Conference on anti-personnel
landmines.
In these two instances, Brazil has sought to add its
own efforts to those of the international community. This
was the main thrust of President Fernando Henrique
Cardoso's decision to submit the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to congressional
approval. Brazil can and should make an additional
contribution to nuclear disarmament. We want to take a
constructive part in discussions within the framework
created by the indefinite extension of the NPT, the most
universal of disarmament treaties. This is also the
guideline for our participation in the Oslo conference and
in the Ottawa process. Brazil stands firmly behind the
interdiction of landmines in all types of conflict.
The international community should do everything
in its power to help poor countries devastated by war.
They suffer the perverse and prolonged effects of
landmines irresponsibly planted in their territories. The
interdiction of anti-personnel landmines and their removal
must become an effective commitment on the part of the
international community. This a question of ethics, a
question of observing the most elementary principles of
humanitarian law. We hope that the international
convention agreed upon in Oslo and the important
commitments it enshrines find universal acceptance.
These positive tendencies might lead to the
impression that the United Nations is less in demand
today than 10, 20 or 50 years ago. This is a false
impression. We are still subject to the effects of
disintegrating factors. Some are, unfortunately,
by-products of new global trends, such as marginalization
within and among nations, transnational crime and
conflicts of interest that find expression through violence
and the threat or use of force.
The persistent and overbearing nature of terrorism
continues to be one of the most serious threats to
international peace and development. It breeds despair and
suffering. In the Middle East, terrorism and intolerance
jeopardize a peace process that was once full of promise
for the peoples of the region. In other countries, some of
them in Latin America, terrorist acts reveal the existence
of groups that still insist on employing tactics
incompatible with the values of civilization and human
dignity. We must not falter in condemning those who, in
disregard of all moral values, resort to cowardly violence
in seeking to advance their own obscure purposes. Brazil
is emphatic in repelling these practices and exhorts the
5

international community to spare no effort in the fight
against terrorism, whatever its form or the alleged reasoning
behind it.
In addition, conflicts that had apparently been
surmounted by a spirit of understanding and constructive
action on the part of the United Nations still show signs of
resistance that demand a strong reaction from the
international community. Angola is a case in point. Hope
and promise cannot be constantly undermined by the factors
that have wrought so much destruction and suffering upon
a valiant people to whom we Brazilians feel so closely
linked. Angola is now a decisive test for the United
Nations. We cannot accept even the slightest possibility of
regression. Brazil, currently holding the presidency of the
Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, calls upon
the international community, and in particular the members
of the Security Council, to exercise close scrutiny over the
Angolan peace process. We must do everything to ensure
that the people of Angola once again find the road of
development in a context of democracy and pluralism.
The United Nations has an irreplaceable role in a
world that still combines forces of integration and
cooperation with forces of disintegration and aggression.
But we have allowed the United Nations to lose its strength
as an instrument of universal peace and understanding and
as a promoter of cooperation and development. We have
done this through inaction, through a lack of consensus,
through obstructionism and through excessive politicization
of issues. We must react to this situation. We must once
again find the cardinal notion of leadership.
The past few years have shown that reform of the
United Nations can no longer be put off. We cannot lose
sight of major institutional issues or waste further precious
energy. The report of the Secretary-General entitled
"Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform"
is thus timely and opportune. The Brazilian Government
welcomes it with satisfaction and enthusiasm. The strength
of our Organization derives from its universality and from
the all-encompassing nature of its mandate. The United
Nations must not be held to the performance of tasks better
suited to other international organizations or specialized
agencies.
We cannot be made prisoners of inertia, nor must we
condemn our debates to irrelevancy. The General Assembly
must urgently move towards an agenda focused on what is
essential to ensuring a relevant role for the United Nations
in international affairs. For the United Nations to make a
difference and provide leadership in today's complex world,
it must recover the original meaning of the Charter by
concentrating on its essential mission: maintaining
international peace and security, promoting justice and
international law, strengthening cooperation for
development, protecting human rights and providing
humanitarian assistance.
Member States must create political conditions for
effective action by the United Nations and make the
commitment to setting priorities and eliminating the
superfluous. Only then will our Organization as a
whole - not just the Secretariat - be able to devote
itself to those fundamental tasks. The Secretary-General
has assumed a leadership role by putting forth ideas that
must be objectively discussed by all Member States.
Brazil is committed to working constructively with Mr.
Kofi Annan on his proposals to strengthen our
Organization.
Brazil has taken an active part in the debate on
reform of the Security Council. We have adopted an
open-minded and constructive approach because we
believe this to be a central element in the reform of the
Organization. Brazil has upheld a concept of reform that
would strengthen the Council and the United Nations as
a whole. It is not geared to the individual interests of any
one country. We want the Council to be representative of
contemporary international realities, as it was in its early
years.
The Council must be enlarged both in its permanent
membership, to take account of the industrialized and the
developing worlds, and in its non-permanent membership,
to allow for more frequent participation by interested
States. We repudiate all discrimination in the conception
or assignment of new seats. We must not create a third or
fourth category of member. This would weaken and
depreciate the participation of the developing world, and
of Latin America in particular, in the reform process and
in an enlarged Council.
We have always said that in identifying new
permanent members we must exercise realism and
pragmatism by means of a democratic selection process
that leads to universally recognized representation without
renouncing regional support. Brazil has expressed,
through President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, its
willingness to accept the responsibilities of permanent
membership in the Security Council, if called upon by the
international community to do so. In such a case, Brazil
would be determined to carry out the role of permanent
member as the representative of Latin America and the
6

Caribbean. We want our region to be present in the
Security Council on a permanent basis and, through ample
coordination and consultation, to have an even stronger
collective voice.
The Brazilian Government notes with satisfaction that
we are moving, if not towards consensus, at least in the
direction of a significant majority in favour of certain basic
notions about how to reform the Security Council,
particularly enlargement of its permanent membership to
take account of the developing world. The proposal by
Ambassador Razali, presently under discussion in the
Working Group, constitutes a firm basis for a negotiating
process leading to a decision by the General Assembly.
Ambassador Razali has helped us regain the ideal of
Council reform as a means of strengthening the entire
Organization. Our priority is now to define the most
suitable format for an enlarged Security Council. This must
be the prime focus of attention.
The international community needs a strong, efficient
and ever-present United Nations. We will continue to rely
on the political body with the universality and moral
strength that, in the history of humankind, only the United
Nations has been able to muster. We must display in this
session the determination to create the conditions for the
United Nations to be an effective instrument for promoting
international peace and security. The same spirit of
leadership that we have seen in the Secretary-General and
in Ambassador Razali has driven many delegations. A new
willingness to make a constructive contribution to the
Security Council reform process and to other reforms is
clearly felt by Member States. There is a new thrust to
negotiations. There is leadership, as well as carefully
crafted proposals. We must take advantage of this unique
opportunity in the history of the United Nations. We must
not let the moment pass. Reform has become more than a
key concept; it has become the order of the day for the
United Nations in 1997.
Let us do it with that "fierce urgency of now" felt by
Martin Luther King, a symbol of political leadership and of
the forces of change in our century. "This is no time", said
King in his most famous speech,
"to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the
tranquillizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time...".
Let us do it, then.


Allow me, at the outset, to express to
Mr. Udovenko, on behalf of my country’s delegation, our
21

warm congratulations on his election to the presidency of
the General Assembly at this session. His election to that
high post is a tribute of the international community to his
friendly country and a reflection of the confidence of the
Members of the United Nations in his ability to shoulder
this heavy responsibility.
By the same token, we express our great appreciation
to his predecessor, Ambassador Razali Ismail, for the great
efficiency with which he conducted the affairs and
deliberations of the Assembly at its previous session.
Furthermore, I wish on this occasion to express my
country’s gratitude to Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the
unrelenting efforts he has made since his assumption of his
post to enhance the role, efficiency and effectiveness of the
United Nations.
Some people have thought that the end of the so-called
cold war would be conducive to the creation of favourable
conditions for equitable and healthy international relations
based on mutual respect and fruitful and constructive
cooperation among human communities. However, what the
Secretary-General has rightly described as a period of
“frenzy” has not taken long to lay such assumptions to rest
and wreak havoc in several regions of the world. This
frenzy is the product of the new unipolar system in which
one country sits alone on the top. This singularity has
emboldened that country to continue to spread its
hegemony, expand the area and scope of its aggression and
impose its conditions, concerned only with its own interests
and ignoring those of others. It has even fought against the
interests of its own allies. Those who have exposed these
trends and refused to pay homage and obeisance except to
God have been labelled outlaws.
The end of the so-called cold war deprived the world
of that balance of power which had, in the past, provided
a protective umbrella for all small, poor and weak
countries. It has even protected other countries as well. The
most important need on the international scene today is to
work seriously to establish any kind of international balance
to preserve the little that has remained of States’
independence, freedom of thought and action, and then to
reverse the negative effects of the period of frenzy, which
is still with us, although it has somewhat receded.
The United Nations has been manipulated by the only
super-Power, which sits alone at the top, against certain
peoples, States and even regions that have joined this
Organization in search of protection, security, peace and
cooperation. The United States of America has managed to
push the Security Council into adopting resolutions outside
its competence against whoever has said “no” to unilateral
hegemony and tyranny or defended the independence of
their countries and their ability to take free decisions and
have free choices. These resolutions adopted at the height
of the period of frenzy at the beginning of this
decade were falsely described as being consistent with
international legality, while in reality there was nothing
legal or international about them. They were adopted
through diktat and by the use of threats directed at the
capitals of the States concerned in order to ensure their
continued applicability.
Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the report of the
Secretary-General on the reform process (A/51/950)
clearly and unequivocally show that these resolutions not
only lack international legality but also that they should
be reviewed and rescinded.
Globalization which means only the imposition of
the interests, language, culture, values and customs of the
one and only Power at the top is not globalization. It is
merely a crowning of that Power as head of the entire
world. Proof of this can be found in the great
contradiction between words and deeds. Its leaders call
for the liberalization of international trade, then enact
legislation imposing one embargo after another on the
movement of goods and capital against those countries
and peoples that want to remain independent and free in
their decision-making. They punish, through their own
legislation, whoever in the world cooperates with it.
What was published today in The New York Times
regarding cooperation between a company located in a
State which is an ally of the United States, and Iran is the
clearest evidence of the truth of what we are stating.
They are the ones who dictate economic embargo
resolutions against countries and peoples and then
unilaterally follow up their implementation. Moreover, it
is these same quarters that work to disarm countries and
selectively destroy whatever weapons they have, while
allowing only themselves and their allies, to the exclusion
of everyone else, to manufacture, possess and acquire
armaments. The same quarters provide money, men,
technology, and know-how to a select group of countries
in order that they may establish and develop a military
industry capable of producing all types of conventional
weapons and even weapons of mass destruction, and if
necessary would send their armies and fleets to fight at
their sides.
22

They call for the protection of human rights while
refusing to acknowledge human rights for anybody but their
own people. This is the case in the denial of the right of the
two Libyan citizens to a fair and neutral trial.
It is the same country that calls for the combating of
terrorism and then goes on to label self-defence, the
defence of honour and resistance against foreign occupiers,
as terrorism. They call for democracy and then support and
finance those who oppose democracy, especially if those
who come to power are against the influence in their
country of the only super-Power.
These examples of the contradiction between words
and deeds, between propaganda and the executive policies
and legislative positions of the very same Power, clearly
show that the call for globalization is not intended for the
good of the world. In reality the world reaps nothing but a
name.
The African continent, which is considered the most
underdeveloped part of the world as we stand at the end of
the twentieth century, is not, in fact, responsible for its
backwardness. A brief review of Africa’s history and a
discerning look at its present state of affairs readily show
that all the problems, without exception, Africa faces —
whether they be problems of political instability in some of
its regions or economic underdevelopment in most, if not
all, its countries — are caused by those who colonized and
drew the political borders of the African countries.
Not one single African country has drawn its own
borders with its neighbours. It was the colonial countries
which did that, dividing tribes, clans and communities
among different countries and thus sowing the seeds of the
current social tensions in many parts of the continent at an
early time. This was a deliberate act carried out under the
infamous policy of “divide and rule”.
Not only did they draw the borders, but they also
looted the natural resources, which they now monopolize.
Any country that dares to free its resources is quickly
surrounded by embargoes. They use all the financial and
economic institutions, including the so-called international
institutions, in a manner that deprives these countries of any
choice but to surrender to their conditions or face the
consequences of confronting them. The responsibility for
what happened during the past epoch and for what
continues to occur in our African continent should be
shouldered by those who caused it in the first place.
The slogan “Africa should help itself”, though
seemingly innocent, is misleading, because it involves an
attempt at avoiding the responsibility for the
consequences of the acts of those who sowed the seeds of
all this in the not-so-distant past. This is still fresh in the
memory of current generations. Those who do care for
Africa do not impose conditions for assisting Africa.
Africa is ready to cooperate with those who are willing to
help, but cannot accept dealing with those who dictate to
it.
My country would like to endorse the position
outlined here in the General Assembly and at the Security
Council meeting devoted to Africa by President Robert
Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe and current Chairman of
the Organization of African Unity (OAU). This is the
position of all Africa and all Africans. From this rostrum,
my country salutes President Mugabe. We confirm what
he said: Africa does not ask for charity from anybody.
We urge those who seek permanent membership in
the Security Council to remember Africa all the time, and
not only when they need the votes of its countries in the
General Assembly to help them take over posts and seats
in various councils and committees. We urge them, and
others, to review the standards and criteria for their
relations with the African countries before it is too late.
Allow me to recall what one of Africa’s leaders said
15 years ago. His country used to export one ton of cocoa
in order to import one tractor. Now it has to export 12
tons of cocoa in order to import one tractor. This
astronomical increase in the price of manufactured goods
compared with the price of raw materials in the space of
15 years is a sufficient reply to all the questions raised
about the relationships of others with Africa in various
fields. This very example explains some of the causes of
the suffering in several African countries, at various
levels.
We would like to say here to both old and new
colonialists alike: Hands off Africa, then Africa will know
how to help itself.
The truth of what we have been saying all along
concerning the Palestinian question has been proved to
everybody. Everyone here has seen and heard about the
practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in Palestine
and the other occupied Arab territories, from the Golan to
southern Lebanon, or rather, all of Lebanon. The Security
Council held meetings to consider the situation in these
territories, but those meetings were aborted by the
23

American veto. The General Assembly held a special
session on the matter, and what was the result? Nothing.
This would explain what the region is facing these days,
and what is in gestation now is even more dangerous than
what is being witnessed today.
The Iraqi people are not only starving and dying; they
are suffering from something more serious than hunger and
more dangerous than death. It is known that some Iraqi
individuals have been forced to sell body parts, such as
kidneys, to feed their children for a little while. What kind
of international legality can justify the continued application
of sanctions that lead to such results? How can any claims
be accepted now from those who pay lip service to so-
called human rights, yet do not apply them except to serve
their political ends? How is it then possible to allow the
partition of Iraq and the violation of the inviolability of its
borders and its territory by foreigners and their armed
forces? It is the United Nations which is responsible for
this situation, since it created the conditions that led to this
situation and has provided the cover for what is happening
in Iraq. It is now the United Nations responsibility to
redress this situation to which it has given rise.
My country overlooks the Mediterranean, with a coast
that extends for about 2,000 kilometres. That is why we are
very keen on making the Mediterranean a lake of peace and
cooperation for its coastal States. However, this is made
impossible by the presence of foreign military bases and
foreign fleets that undermine the region’s stability and
represent a permanent source of danger. This presence has
been the cause of our continued concern, because we have
sacrificed half our population for our freedom. Three times
a year, we celebrate the anniversaries of the evacuation of
foreign troops from our country. Peace, stability and
cooperation in the Mediterranean will be possible only
when foreign military bases are eliminated, when foreign
fleets are withdrawn from its waters.
My country, like the rest of the developing world,
welcomes the international conventions aimed at the
prohibition and elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
We believe that this is in the interest of mankind as a
whole. However, the resumption of nuclear tests, under any
pretext, is a great source of disappointment because they
are a violation of the international conventions concluded
in this field. The possession by Tel Aviv of nuclear
weapons has placed the entire eastern Arab region under a
direct threat, constant dangers and definite instability.
Without technical and financial support, without the
experts and scientists who are part and parcel of this
support, such weapons would not have been produced in
the region. It is well known — indeed, it has been
declared — that tests are now being conducted on long-
range missiles that could deliver these weapons of mass
destruction to their targets in Arab and Muslim lands
alike. Tests are also being conducted on anti-missile
missiles, as part of the strategic cooperation between
Washington and Tel Aviv.
On the other hand, all Iraqi weapons have been
destroyed. Preparations are being made to destroy all the
weapons of the Arabs and Muslims, who are helpless and
whose territories are occupied. Alliances are being forged
to surround the Arabs and Muslims so as to prevent them
from ever becoming powerful and so as to secure for
Washington their oil, their gas and their markets.
This is the truth, however bitter it may be for us
Arabs and Muslims to swallow. My country would like to
alert the world to the real sources of danger, not the
fictitious ones — that is, those being used to fabricate
causes and pretexts to justify the destruction and
recolonization of the rest of the world.
It is not Libya, nor Syria, nor Iraq, nor Iran nor the
Sudan which constitute any danger, by any measure, to
the security of the region or the security and peace of the
world. The real danger to international peace and security
lies in Washington and Tel Aviv, and those who emulate
them. They both possess and manufacture weapons of
mass destruction. Washington manufactures them and
Washington exports them. This is while the countries to
which I have referred do not manufacture weapons and,
moreover, have been prevented by America from
importing any such weapons. America has imposed an
international arms embargo against those countries. It has
destroyed Iraqi weapons, and is now preparing to destroy
the conventional and even the obsolete weapons possessed
by others.
This is the law of the United States against which
these countries have rebelled. Thus they were labelled
“rogues”. This is the new and old form of discrimination.
This is the newest form of anti-Semitism.
We call for emptying the region of the Arab East of
weapons of mass destruction, which Tel Aviv owns. The
plants that manufacture these weapons should be
subjected to international safeguards and controls. We
also call for investigating the financial and technical
support that enabled Tel Aviv to produce these weapons.
We must criminalize this support and those who provide
24

it. The agreements of military strategic cooperation between
Washington and Tel Aviv are hostile instruments, targeting
the region as a whole and its peoples. This provides
evidence of the real intentions of the United States towards
the region and its peoples, voids its allegations and
argumentations with respect to disarmament and reveals its
intentions.
We highlight these issues to show the world the extent
of the injustice to which we have been subjected and to
what extent the United States of America is deceiving
everybody.
The United States used to have five military bases in
my country. It had monopolized the production and export
of Libyan oil and gas. The United Kingdom also had a
number of military bases in Libya. Through its own
company, British Petroleum, it also produced and exported
our oil.
With the advent of the revolution of 1 September
1969, Libya immediately evacuated the military bases of
those two countries and later liberated its oil wealth from
their companies.
However, under international conditions that the
Secretary-General has rightly called a period of frenzy, the
two countries thought that the time was ripe for a return to
what they were forced to relinquish and to regain control of
the 2,000-kilometre-long Libyan coastline, adjacent to the
three old continents of Africa, Asia and Europe. They
believed the time was ripe to regain control of my
country’s oil, gas and market, as well as neighbouring
markets. Once finished with the Gulf War, they turned their
attention to Libya. However, the two countries were unable
to find a pretext to realize their ambition of a new return to
Libya except by resorting to allegations, which came to be
known later as the Lockerbie case.
What is the real truth about Lockerbie? In brief, and
precisely, it is as follows. First, both the United States of
America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain are
aware, more than anybody else, that Libya has nothing
whatever to do with this aeroplane and the tragic incident
that killed its passengers and crew.
Second, both the United States of America and the
United Kingdom claim that two Libyans placed a time
bomb in a bag on board a Maltese Airlines flight that took
off from Malta, and that the bag was unaccompanied
baggage. They claim that this very bag, which was not
accompanied by a passenger, was transferred in Frankfurt
airport from the Maltese Airlines aeroplane to an
American aeroplane destined for London. Once again,
they say, this same bag was transferred in London airport
from the aircraft originating in Frankfurt to Pan Am
Flight 103, which later took off from London and
exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Can the Assembly imagine how an unaccompanied
bag can move by itself from one airplane to another and
from one airport to another with such accuracy?
Third, the Government of Malta investigated the
matter and found that there were no unaccompanied bags
on the flight in question. Malta announced the results of
the investigation at the time.
Fourth, the competent authorities in Germany, in
turn, investigated the question and found nothing to
corroborate the story about the bag.
Fifth, in any case, my country, despite the known
objectives of the authors of the accusation, dealt seriously
and pragmatically with the accusation. We informed all
concerned parties that we had begun implementation of
the provisions of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil
Aviation. The legal authorities in Libya began exercising
their legal jurisdiction in accordance with that
Convention.
Sixth, my country asked the two countries concerned
to hand over to Libyan judicial authorities the results of
their investigations so they could be used in our
investigation. This request was rejected.
Seventh, my country then asked the two countries to
send investigators to Libya to participate in the
investigation. Once again they refused.
Eighth, my country then offered to send its judicial
officials to meet with the competent authorities in both
the United States and the United Kingdom to peruse the
file on this question. This offer was turned down.
Ninth, Libya also offered to let a neutral party or
parties to carry out the investigation. The two countries
refused that offer.
Tenth, once again, my country proposed that the
United Nations should carry out the investigation. That
proposal was rejected.
25

Eleventh, in a letter addressed to the Foreign Minister
of the United Kingdom and the United States Secretary of
State by the Secretary of the General People’s Committee
for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, my
country requested that article 14 of the 1971 Montreal
Convention be invoked. That request was refused.
Twelfth, Libya proposed resorting to the International
Court of Justice to decide the case. That proposal was
turned down by the other parties. And when my country
unilaterally took the case to the International Court of
Justice, the parties concerned quickly turned the whole
issue from a legal to a political one, submitting it to the
Security Council to prevent the International Court of
Justice from deciding the case. Here we have the Security
Council dealing with an issue pertaining to two citizens of
a country. The issue is now five years old. So the issue is
before the Security Council precisely to prevent the
International Court of Justice from deciding the case since
the matter was put before the Security Council, despite the
fact that Libya, naturally, had resorted to the International
Court of Justice before the matter was even referred to the
Security Council.
This is how this legal question was politicized. When
did that occur? This was done at the peak of the “frenzy”
period, on 21 January 1992. Nobody at the time could say
no to the United States of America. As we all know, the
Security Council, under well-known and frankly recognized
pressures, adopted resolution 731 (1992) which did not
stipulate any surrender of the suspects, but requested a
response to the demands of the countries concerned. I
repeat, it did not provide for surrendering the suspects.
Thirteenth, my country has fully responded to the
provisions of the resolution both in terms and content by
cooperating with the United Kingdom on the question of
the Irish Republican Army, and with the French
investigating judge in all the demands he made.
Furthermore, we agreed to a trial for the two Libyan
suspects in a fair and neutral court.
Fourteenth, the aim of both the United States and the
United Kingdom has not been to discover the real culprit in
this regrettable and tragic airplane incident. They already
know who the responsible party is. Their real objective has
been to use the whole issue, including the human blood that
was shed, to achieve their own political objectives which I
have already elucidated. To achieve that end, they exploited
the Security Council once again, pushing it to adopt
resolution 748 (1992) which imposes a near total embargo
on Libya and its dealings with the rest of the world. The
Council also adopted resolution 883 (1993), which
complemented the previous resolution.
Fifteenth, in the face of all this intransigence and
arrogance, when all efforts and mediation failed to
convince the two countries concerned to opt for dialogue
and negotiations; since they had earlier unilaterally
severed their diplomatic relations with my country; and
because my country has no extradition treaty with either
of the two countries, we resorted to regional and
international organizations. Today, we would like to put
on record, as always, our deepest appreciation to these
organizations for their support and for their stand in
favour of what is right. Those organizations, let us recall,
represent more than two thirds of the international
community.
We hasten to confirm that the other third is not
against us; rather, its States are simply not members of
those organizations. The League of Arab States, the
Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the
Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement have
all supported my country and expressed their appreciation
for my country’s flexibility in our handling of the issue,
as well as for the positive initiatives we have proposed.
Sixteenth, the League of Arab States and the
Organization of African Unity, through the Harare
summit, under the chairmanship of President Robert
Mugabe, have proposed that the trial of the two suspects
be held in a neutral third country to be determined by the
Security Council; that the two suspects be tried by
Scottish judges, under Scottish law, at the seat of the
International Court of Justice in The Hague; or that a
special criminal tribunal be established to try the two
suspects at the seat of the International Court of Justice in
The Hague.
Seventeenth, both the Secretary-General of the Arab
League and the Secretary-General of the Organization of
African Unity came to United Nations Headquarters with
the resolutions of their respective organizations in hand,
resolutions that are supported by the Organization of the
Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement.
They submitted these resolutions to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations and to the President of the Security
Council and its member States. What was the reaction of
the United States and the United Kingdom? Both rejected
the requests made by other members of the Council and
used the Council’s work mechanism — so-called
consensus — to reject all proposals submitted by their
majesties and excellencies, the kings and presidents of the
26

two organizations. Naturally, this was a shock to both
regional organizations because they were fully and
arrogantly ignored.
Eighteenth, on 25 September of this year, during the
Security Council’s ministerial meeting on Africa, the entire
meeting became a forum for discussing the issue when it
was raised by His Excellency President Robert Mugabe,
President of Zimbabwe and current Chairman of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), in his address to the
Council. Again, in the name of my country, its leader and
people, I wish to express again our gratitude to President
Mugabe for his honourable defence of the concerns and the
causes of Africa as a whole, and in particular his defence
of my country on this question.
The issue was also raised by His Excellency
Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of OAU, and
by most of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the
Council’s members. As we express our gratitude to all of
them, we wish to confirm that their support would have
never been so forthcoming had we been wrong.
Nineteenth, about a week ago, the Council of the
League of Arab States decided to call on Arab States to
mitigate some of the impacts of the sanctions imposed on
my country. We are grateful to the Council and to all our
brothers. We realize that this is a step in the right direction
and that it is but a mild reaction to their being ignored last
July.
We ask you for justice. Members of the Security
Council are not against my country. They have expressed
that in all our meetings with them. They further add that
our problem is with the United States and the United
Kingdom. Our dispute is with the judge. How can anyone
expect the Security Council to solve the problem when our
adversaries are both permanent members of the Council and
possess the veto power?
Once again, our problem is with the United States and
the United Kingdom. We have no problem whatever with
the Security Council, and the Security Council has no
problem with us. Had these two countries accepted the
proposals of the regional and international organizations,
had they showed respect for the States members of these
organizations and for their presidents and representatives,
the Security Council would not have hesitated for one
moment to accept them. This is what we were told by
members of the Council. We are not just saying that.
My country calls on all of you to intervene so we
can reach a peaceful solution to this dispute, one that
would accelerate the holding of the trial for the two
suspects before a fair and just court, in an atmosphere
free from prior condemnation, in any place agreed upon,
or decided upon by the Security Council.
The two suspects were advised by their American
and Scottish lawyers against accepting a trial before any
court in Scotland or the United States. This is because of
intensive media coverage and statements by officials in
the two countries which have created a climate and public
opinion that have convicted them in advance of any trial.
This does not accord with their human right to receive a
just and fair trial. The fact that the United States
Government has accorded Timothy McVeigh, accused in
the Oklahoma explosion, the right to change the venue of
his trial from Oklahoma, where the crime occurred, to
another state — namely Colorado — is evidence of
respect for one of the human rights — a respect which
should not be restricted only to the citizens of the United
States. This is because human rights should be enjoyed by
all human beings, irrespective of their nationality. Human
rights should not be accorded to some and denied to
others.
My country, at all levels of official responsibility,
has repeatedly condemned terrorism in all its forms and
manifestations. We have disassociated ourselves from all
suspected terrorist practices. We have also repeatedly
asked the Secretary-General and the Security Council to
send a committee or envoys to ascertain on the ground
the validity of our claims.
However, the refusal and objections of the United
States prevented the Secretariat and the Security Council
from responding to our requests. This is one of the main
reasons why we have such strong suspicions about the
true intentions of the United States against my country.
This has also exposed its political objectives, for the
attainment of which it did not hesitate to exploit human
blood.
We call on the international community, as
represented in this Assembly, to work towards reaching
a solution as soon as possible.
The United States refusal to allow this side issue —
“the question of terrorism” — to be closed is aimed at
serving the particular objectives of that country, objectives
we have already referred to. Everybody knows that it was
the United States which more than once committed
27

terrorist acts against my country, using its fleets and its
bombers. The most heinous of these acts was the barbaric
raid on the night of 15 April 1986 against the residence and
office of the Libyan brother leader, and against other
residential neighbourhoods in both Tripoli and Benghazi. In
this raid, tens of children, women and elderly were
martyred in their sleep. The United States cannot produce
one shred of evidence to prove the so-called Libyan
terrorism, whereas Libya has dozens of proofs of the
terrorism perpetrated by the United States against Libya.
The raid made on the night of 15 April 1986 is not a
suspected perpetration of an act, as is the case with our
citizens who are suspected by the United States. The raid
of 15 April 1986 is an established fact whose consequences
can still be seen in the tombs of the martyrs in the famous
El-Hani Cemetery and in the remnants of buildings that still
clearly show the marks of bombs and rockets. And if all of
this is far away in Tripoli and Benghazi, I am here before
you and I personally stand as a proof of the terrorism of the
United States. These scars here on my face and on my
head, and on other parts of my body covered by my
clothes, are the result of a bomb that an American aircraft
dropped on my house, which was totally demolished that
night. My young son, who was less than 10 years old at the
time, was also injured.
We, who personally were victims of the American
raid, resorted to the American judicial system here in the
United States and brought a legal suit before an American
court. Despite all the evidence, the American judicial
system rejected our case. This negative experience with
American justice would surely discourage anyone from
accepting to be tried by such a judiciary, especially if the
opposing party was the American Government. I personally
tried to institute a lawsuit and had American lawyers. My
house is destroyed and erased from the Tripoli map. I have
scars on my face, yet the case was rejected. And now we
are to trust it and send our citizens before it? How?
We cannot forget that crime. We will always call for
those who decided, planned and implemented it to appear
before competent Libyan courts for trial. The crime took
place in my country. They say that a crime took place in
Scotland? Fine. But another crime took place in Tripoli and
Banghazi. Are their people citizens, and our people are not
citizens? We are also citizens of our own nation-State. They
have mere suspicions. We have facts not suspicions which
were actually shown on American television screens.
We believe that the reform of the United Nations is of
the utmost importance to us. However, optimum results of
this reform cannot be achieved unless the financial
situation of the Organization is put on the right track and,
most importantly, Member States must pay their assessed
contributions. The fact that the United States has reneged
on its contractual commitments to the United Nations by
not paying its assessed contribution to the budget is the
cause of the financial crisis from which the Organization
has suffered for years. If the United Nations is to be
reformed, that State must pay all of its arrears without
conditions and promise to pay in future, on time and
without pressures that aim to make the United Nations a
hostage of the will and policies of that country.
We know that that State is now pressuring members
of the General Assembly to make up for the lowering of
its contribution by 5 per cent. We know that nothing has
been decided yet regarding changes of assessment or
contributions. This is what we call sitting on top of this
unipolar world. This is what we are warning the world of.
We would not have known that had we not been told by
those who are being pressured to pay the extra 5 per cent.
The fact that they told us — the Libyans — clearly shows
that they are dissatisfied and that they obviously are
refusing. They cannot say no. But we can say no.
Within the framework of the reform process, it is
essential to have a complete review of the situation of the
Security Council. By virtue of our experience with the
Security Council — an experience I have just commented
on — we know and appreciate the importance and
necessity of reforming the Security Council and
expanding its membership. We believe that the reform
should focus first on improving the methods of work of
the Council — its mechanisms — thus making it
impossible for any one country to hamper the work of the
Council or make it irrelevant.
My country, which a quarter of a century ago called
for the abrogation of the veto power, would like to
emphasize now that any reform of the Security Council
that does not rescind the veto power would be
meaningless. There is no longer any historical or
objective reason for maintaining this power. It is not
justifiable by any standard of righteousness, justice and
equality, and even under the standards of democracy, to
which certain countries pay lip service. At the same time,
we believe that the reform process will not be useful if it
does not take into consideration the interests of all
countries and peoples.
That is why my country will support any initiative
that would do away with the present imbalance in the
28

membership of the Security Council. In this respect, we
should like to underline the need to adhere to the proposals
of the Non-Aligned Movement, which are based on full,
sovereign equality among States; seek to apply the
principle of equitable geographical distribution; and
respond to the demands of the developing countries,
which represent the majority of the Members of the
United Nations.
The General Assembly is the United Nations organ
that truly embodies the universal and democratic character
of this international Organization. Since it is the only
intergovernmental body with a mandate to discuss any
question or matter under the Charter, including the
maintenance of international peace and security, Libya
would like to underline the wide-ranging and repeated
calls for the need to invigorate the General Assembly and
enhance its powers so as to increase its effectiveness in
confronting the ever-changing challenges that face the
international community.
Lastly, I wish to apologize for having taken up so
much of the Assembly’s time.