One does not
usually say anything personal from this podium. I would submit, however, that
my position does allow me to depart from this role. Exactly two years ago, I
finished my address here and left this very podium for what I thought was the
last time. Yes, I foresaw my resignation from the post of Foreign Minister of
the Soviet Union, as I also foresaw menacing changes coming.
Before coming here again I reread that address. The ideas that inspired
it are, I think, still valid today. They helped me make a forecast that has
been borne out by current events. I said then that all the peoples of the
Soviet Union were entering the political arena and reassuming their age-old
national names.

All of them, including my country, are being dogged by the merciless
onslaught of the economic crisis, which I also spoke about in my appeal to the
international community to set up an international mechanism capable of
mitigating its adverse effects.
I said then that after the end of the cold war new and sinister figures
would appear on the world political scene, and that the breakdown of attempts
to take the road to democracy would give rise to chaos and new dictatorial
regimes. I followed my prediction about the threat of new armed conflicts
emerging, of mass hostage-taking and the spread of terrorism with the
conclusion that regional structures security structures - operating under
United Nations auspices must be set up.
Even that long ago, two years, I keenly felt the need to really think in
terms of doctrine about the new realities of the contemporary world, to
re-examine the old principles of our interrelationships, in both the inter-
and intra-State areas, and to work out new ones.
When I spoke then I was speaking as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of a
great Power. Now I am speaking as the representative of a country that is
microscopic in comparison. However, the dramatic change in scale does not
reduce the size of the problems. In that tiny part of Earth called Georgia,
which history has nailed to the geopolitical cross, have converged, in a
manner that passes understanding, all the woes and contradictions that the
Empire fed into its genetic code and constantly generated, and which continue
to rack us even now that the Empire is dead. Everything I thought and spoke
of, foresaw and predicted has befallen Georgia, my country. And there was no
need for clairvoyance, either; all you needed was to know the system you were

dealing with. One of the greats once said that predicting important events in
the future was no more difficult than successfully guessing the past: if past
events leave traces, then, logically, future events must have roots.
The system was doomed. In August 1991, there was an attempt to save it
using its own typical methods: conspiracy, flouted laws, the use of force. I
had on many occasions warned about the possibility of a coup and totalitarian
revanchism. If the necessary conclusions had been drawn from these words of
warning, then we would have been dealing not with the chaotic collapse of a
huge Power, but with relatively painless and controllable transitions to a new
status quo and to the formation of new States. The swiftness of the death
throes and the speed of the disintegration took the world community by
surprise. It was caught off guard, and is now seeing how new offshoots of
violence, new offshoots of catastrophe, are sprouting from the exposed
rootstock.
Georgia will serve as a typical example. Here we have deep
socio-economic crisis. Here the fall of the Empire was attended by the rise
of a dictatorial regime. Here several internal conflicts were provoked, and
separatism threatens to break up a small country and splinter its historic
territory into dwarf States. Here subversion, terrorism and mass
hostage-taking rule. And, finally, here as nowhere else is the danger so
great that the existing internal conflicts will merge with the ones in
neighbouring States and grow into regional or even continental wars fought
along national or religious lines.

I would recall that, like some other countries, Georgia was incorporated
into the Soviet Union by military force. That force was inspired by an
ideology that placed the interests of the class struggle far above common
human goals and national values. In the light of this ideology, the integrity
of territories and borders that had been shaped over time was of no
significance: they were redrawn and parcelled out again to follow the lines
on the battlefield of proletarian internationalism. The State, political,
administrative and territorial structure so formed was such that it contained
within itself the germs of dissatisfaction, smouldering enmity and potential
conflict within republics and between them.
Time bombs were planted for our futures. While the power of ideology and
repressive compulsion kept this heterogeneous community together, the bombs
lay idle. As soon as that power was removed, they went off, and today a blast
front of enormous power is destroying whole States.
Georgia too is threatened. The history of Georgia's struggle for
statehood spans many centuries. For many centuries, this struggle went
together with the formation of a distinctive national culture and the defence
of its faith and language. In the year 337 AD, Christianity, as the State
religion, blessed the country's impulse towards unity within its own common
borders. Having become a powerful State in Western Asia by the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, Georgia established cultural centres both within its own
borders and in various other States beyond.
My portrait of Georgia would not be complete if I missed out one very
important feature: from time immemorial, as part of the flow of peoples,
ideas and cultures, Georgia has upheld racial and religious tolerance as a

basic tenet of its way of life. Forced to do battle with the most powerful
foreign adversaries, Georgia did not suffer from either xenophobia or
religious fanaticism. In its capital city, Tbilisi, within an area of one
square kilometre, one can see a Georgian Orthodox church, an Armenian
Gregorian cathedral, a mosque, a synagogue and a Lutheran church. Christian
from the fourth century on, Georgia has also seen Islam take root in some of
its historically important provinces. And never was there enmity or discord
between them, nor was anyone denied the right to live according to his or her
own beliefs or traditions.
Unfortunately for all of us, the slings and arrows of history brought
down this unity, from within as well as from outside, and something similar is
happening now. I consider it my duty to draw your attention to the Caucasus
region, as, here and now, a new and serious hotbed of interethnic, regional
and international tension is emerging.
This new source of Shockwaves is within the mainstream of contemporary
geopolitical trends: the displacement of a global confrontation onto regional
levels. This displacement has taken the form of large-scale armed conflicts,
such as the ones we are seeing in some countries of Europe, around the
Dniestr, at home in Georgia and in Transcaucasia, and in Central Asia.
This vacuum of ideas abhors its own emptiness. We should have started
thinking about events in the huge expanse from Bosnia to Tajikistan, including
the Caucasus, and studying them, long ago, to find out the whys and
wherefores. Sound politicians and statesmen as well as ordinary people,
whether Christian or Muslim, who live in this vast area or elsewhere have a
duty to halt this most dangerous process. The threat of large-scale conflicts
kindled and enflamed by fundamentalism of whatever kind is too

serious to be ignored. And the danger is that much greater when fanaticism is
exploited by fundamentalists of a Bolshevist stripe.
Although they have various causes, the new conflicts do have some
features in common, particularly the following: they all began and are
developing against a background in which a number of factors are operating
either simultaneously or partially. These are an ethnic patchwork; a variety
of religions and denominations; socio-economic inequality; and a troubled
historical and political past.
In the case of the Caucasus, these factors which are common to all the
regions in question must be added to the specificity of its geopolitical
situation. At the meeting point of powerful geopolitical forces, it has from
time immemorial served as a buffer zone between South and North, Christianity
and Islam, as an arena in which they played out their aspirations and
interests.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union has left an opening for new
rivalries to appear. Because of their political, economic and military
weakness, the new States of the Caucasus are not able to fill this vacuum and
establish reliable safeguards for their own security. External forces apart,
various internal groupings are trying to turn the vacuum to their own
advantage under the cover of nationalistic, pseudopatriotic, separatist, and,
most recently, even religious guises with their own, self-serving political
agendas.
The activities of the so-called Confederation of the Mountain Peoples of
the Caucasus, which has flouted the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and
the borders of the Republic of Georgia, have made this clear in one way or
another. Against the will of the people of the northern Caucasus and their
legally elected governments, this illegal, in essence openly terrorist,

militarized organization, serving no State, has called for any means to be
used, including mass terror; has declared our country, and its capital city, a
disaster zone; and has been sending mercenaries and terrorist killers, in the
guise of volunteers, across our frontiers. Under our very eyes, the flames of
war are rising, and are even now threatening to engulf not only Georgia alone.
Right before our eyes a new war is blazing up, threatening not just
Georgia. There is only one conclusion to be drawn: in comparison with the
other "hot spots" of the post-communist world, the risk of conflict in the
Caucasus is higher, and the Caucasus therefore endangers international peace
and security more.
Georgia is at the very centre of where the problems of the Caucasus
meet. Yet again, as so often before in our history, Georgia's fate, its
statehood and its very existence are marked on the map. Faced with the
complex interactions of internal and external forces, we are striving to
implement an active, balanced policy. Within the country, our policy is one
of democratic transformation, national reconciliation and peaceful settlement
of conflicts, while externally it is one of the development of friendly
relationships with all the countries in the region and cooperation with the
world community.
We are grateful to our neighbours through history: to Turkey, with which
we have concluded a friendship treaty; and to Iran, with which we are
developing friendly contacts, to the mutual benefit of both countries. Our
centuries-long links with the peoples of Transcaucasia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan, and with the republics of the Northern Caucasus and with Ukraine,
give us an excellent foundation for close cooperation in the interest of our
countries.

Of particular importance to us and not to us alone are our relations
with Russia. Russia has assisted us in setting up machinery to settle the
Georgian-Ossetian conflict. Twice now Russia has borne witness to the
principle of the territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders of our
State, and has joined in the process of achieving a peaceful settlement in
another conflict, in Abkhazia.
A stable, prosperous and democratic Russia is a factor on a global scale
and global in significance. A threat to Russia from the forces of
totalitarian revanchism is a threat to us all. In the conspiracy against
Georgia which is now coming out into the open, Russia's red-brown
reactionaries are standing shoulder to shoulder with the extreme
fundamentalists, home-grown fascists and separatists. The world must know
about this, and the world has a duty to help reinforce a stable, democratic
Russia and, by so doing, help both us and its own self.
Those are the facts of our political life today. Those facts are why we
keep trying to achieve the establishment of a Transcaucasian mechanism for
consultation and agreement. We propose that we should begin to establish a
system of collective security in the Black Sea-Caucasus region, and, in this
regard, we very much appreciate Turkey's initiatives. We support the new
institutions of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE),
whose goal is conflict prevention and the protection of the rights of national
minorities. Our doors are wide open to fact-finding missions from European or
world organizations.

However, today this is not enough. The end of the cold war has put the
need to develop a more effective system of global security on the agenda. The
pace of events is outstripping us; the European process is falling behind, and
has been very late with its response to the challenges of a time of
transformations. There has been a significant lag too in the United Nations
reaction to the major changes in various regions of the world, with the
changes in the former Soviet Union in the forefront.
We welcome the bold initiatives of the Secretary-General aimed at making
the Organization more dynamic and capable of responding quickly to the needs
of the day. His report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) quite rightly raises
the question of the United Nations taking a multi-tiered approach to the
problems of the modern world. It is a good thing that an authoritative,
independent commission has been set up to examine the role of the Organization
under current conditions.
There is no need to fear reforms when reforms are so necessary,
especially, in our view, in the two interrelated fields of peace-keeping and
nation-building in the newly independent States. I have a number of
suggestions to make about these two fields.
My first suggestion concerns the establishment of a global monitoring
network for the monitoring, prevention and settlement of internal conflicts.
Special United Nations observers at "hot spots" and regional bureaux, missions
and information centres would help us obtain a clear picture of events and
develop specific responses. The machinery for doing this should be based
right in the regions where conflict is occurring; in our example, in the
Caucasus it could be based on the United Nations office in Tbilisi. We would
also suggest expanding the mandate of the CSCE High Commissioner for national

minorities so that, if required, he could inform the Secretary-General and our
Organization's Commission on Human Rights. The most important thing is that
this should be got off the ground as quickly as possible. Similar
institutions with the same mandates could be established within other regional
organizations too.
The United Nations needs a special body to collect and process
information on potential ethnic conflicts and to draw conclusions and issue
recommendations based upon it. Another of its functions would be to forecast
conflict situations at an early stage in their gestation.
The International Court too could be brought in to consider conflicts.
The role and the capabilities of the Security Council must be looked at
anew. We have more than once raised the issue of whether the Military Staff
Committee should not become more actively involved. Now that the cold war is
over but the number of "hot spots" is burgeoning, the Security Council cannot
do without this, or another similar structure, if it is to carry out its
function under the Charter in full measure.
It must be made binding on the States Members of the United Nations to
inform the Security Council of imminent conflicts. Failure to comply must
call down sanctions. We commit ourselves to sending the United Nations and
its Security Council annual reports on the state of affairs in the areas of
the protection of human rights and national minorities, and on crisis
situations which could lead to serious complications within the country or the
region.
This problem has yet another facet: information. Rivalry spills over
into the newspapers and on the airwaves, and the side with the best
technology, the most money and the widest access to the media and to media

people wins. Public opinion becomes one-sided and unfounded, but this again
is half the battle. The worst thing is that this guerrilla warfare in the
media nourishes the soil of conflicts and makes them more difficult to
settle. We see a possible way out of this by establishing centres to
disseminate objective information under the auspices of the international
organizations.
My second suggestion concerns the problem of refugees. Ethnic conflicts
have increased their number manyfold: no one now knows exactly how many there
are. No one knows what resources are needed to help them and what we should
start doing first to rule out the possibility of fresh conflicts after they
return home. Here too a system of observers is needed, as is an aid
organization larger in scale than what we have now and capable not only of
providing material support but of making the whole process more manageable.
In our view, the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees
needs root-and-branch reform.
My third suggestion is that there should be general and comprehensive
control over the proliferation of arms. The clans of ethnic mafiosi spawned
under the totalitarian system are accumulating the colossal sums needed to
acquire weapons and to suborn soldiers into taking part in hostilities and
passing out materiel to the irregulars on the quiet. The national security
forces and law-enforcement agencies in the young independent States are being
overwhelmed by this epidemic of out-of-control arms races. What we need are
international rapid deployment forces a sort of Interpol of Blue Helmets -
an independent disarmament monitoring agency and the introduction of regional
arms registers.

My fourth suggestion is for United Nations rapid deployment forces in the
field of international legal thought and theoretical and doctrinal
developments. The traditional system of legal guidelines is lagging
hopelessly far behind the onrush of geopolitical changes. The world is facing
arbitrary and one-sided interpretations of a whole range of internationally
recognized principles. Arbitrary, wild-cat declarations of sovereignty have
led in practice to encroachments on the territorial integrity of States and on
the inviolability of their borders, and to large population groups being
turned into second-class citizens; it has also caused and will cause many
bloody conflicts.
Unfortunately, separatism and extremism, when combined, are the ruin not
just of States but of legal systems too. The top dogs of the separatist
movements are bending the rules so far they are turning them into
caricatures. If extremist separatism is not stopped, what awaits is a world
splintered and in collapse, with the anarchy and chaos lasting into the
twenty-first century.
On no account can some principles be made absolute at the expense of
others. It is morally wrong for one group to go for self-determination as if
they do not notice that for centuries, side-by-side with them, on the same
land, there have been peoples living, peoples that cannot physically be
removed. This is the problem to beat all problems of today's world.
Every aspiration, every claim, every norm and category should be measured
in terms of the human scale of politics, whose priorities are the equality of
the rights of each citizen, of everybody, regardless of nationality,
ethnicity, language or religion. In the light of this approach, we see that

not only do national minorities need to have their rights protected, but so do
the citizens of the majority, however paradoxical that may sound. Otherwise,
we may face an updated form of apartheid and ethnic dictatorship, like we have
in the conflict zone of Abkhazia, where the minority has managed to impose its
will on the majority.
How could this have come about? What we have here is a classic example
of self-interested bending of the law. Thanks to a discriminatory electoral
law, electors of a single nationality, comprising no more than 18 per cent of
the population, send more deputies to the parliament of the Abkhazian
Autonomous Republic than the electors in another that makes up more than half
the population there, and the rights of the other national groups are being
trampled on too: it takes only a third as many votes to elect one Abkhazi
deputy as it does to elect a Georgian, a Russian, an Armenian and so on.
At the end of the day, this kind of legal extremism leads to bitter
confrontation. The governing elite, reflecting as it does the mood of the
extremist wing of the minority, is ruling by Draconian diktat and is going so
far as to wrest territory that has been Georgia's from time immemorial away
from it.

Separatism is immune to dialogue and compromise: this we know from our
own experience. Separatism does not want talks, rejects the methods of
rational politics and even balks at implementing what it has agreed. It
switches meanings, calling aggression and occupation "movement of military
sub-units within our own territory". How can this be? And in Georgia, on
Georgian soil, where Georgians and Abkhazis have lived, still live and will go
on living together?
In the near future the General Assembly will consider a draft declaration
on the rights of national minorities. We are going to support it, as we
supported the corresponding resolutions of the CSCE. However, I wish to say
once again that any instrument of this kind must also contain an article on
minorities' share of the responsibility for maintaining stability and peace in
the territory where they live.
It is also time to develop more precise criteria for which legal subjects
are entitled to self-determination, and to introduce a practice of
independent, expert examination of the facts involved in the arbitrary
interpretation and exercise of this right.
My fifth suggestion concerns the fact that none of the above will work
properly unless more effective machinery for supporting the new democracies
economically is set up. My saying so does not detract from our gratitude to
the European and world financial institutions; it is thanks to them that we
are still alive. However, facts are facts: the economies of the republics of
the former Union, are on the brink of catastrophe. The drop in production by
almost a third, in Georgia's case, the lack of fuel and raw materials and the
catastrophic increases in prices for them, the loss of traditional suppliers
and markets and imminent mass unemployment set a limit to democratic
transformations.

I say to you most emphatically: the appalling economic crisis in the
republics of the former Union will send shock waves throughout the world. If
this goes on, a social explosion of enormous force is inevitable. A change in
values away from democracy to those of the power of the firm hand is
inevitable. And for this the world will have a higher price to pay than it
would have to pay now. Let us think how we can prevent this, let us think
what sort of system of reliable international economic insurance we can try to
set up.
It is quite clear that this point must be taken into account in the
international organizations, particularly the United Nations: it is difficult
to talk about world economic stability and a single world zone of security if
the world's leading Powers do not take part. The Security Council absolutely
must exert real influence on the state of affairs. I used to come out against
increasing the number of permanent members. Now that the Soviet Union has
fallen apart and the balance of power has shifted, we need to concern
ourselves with finding the best composition of permanent members to increase
the degree of effect that the Security Council can have on the world economic
process, and not just on the economic process. The role of economic giants
such as Germany and Japan will have to be rethought.
I would mention in passing that the forecasts concerning certain
pretensions on the part of the United States of America to some kind of
special role in the new circumstances that would allow it to impose its will
on the world have not proved to be accurate what I have in mind here is the
principal, fundamental trend. The balanced foreign policy of this great
country has not run counter to the interests of other States and, in the final
analysis, has helped maintain the balance in the interests of peace and

stability. We would like to hope that the United States will go on being a
guarantee of peace, order and equilibrium in the new, extremely complex
conditions and in the process of building the new world order.
The United Nations cannot stand idly by when it comes to material support
for the new democracies. Here too we need rapid deployment forces, economic
ones this time. The United Nations is quite within its powers to coordinate
the activities of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other
regional and international institutions more effectively and on a new basis in
order to give fuller support for the success of the economic reforms in the
new States that have begun that most important process, the building of
democratic societies.
My sixth suggestion is that we are quite simply obliged to introduce into
the body of international law an instrument concerning the personal
responsibility of individuals who incite mass disorders, political brutality,
hostage-taking, terrorist acts or any kind of blockade, whether economic or
political. Our troubled times have brought these people forth. The pygmies
are in revolt against humankind. This has all happened before, but the world
has never before had to face a wave of "Messiahs" wanting to consolidate their
power on the back of the sufferings of their own people on the scale it is
facing them now. Lilliputians tying down Gullivers that is the reality in
many countries, including my own.
I now come to my seventh and last suggestion. Everything I have said so
far attests to the fact that our common responsibility for peace and security
requires us to harmonize and coordinate our common efforts in the political,
economic, military, financial and ecological fields. These fields should be
managed on four interdependent and interrelated levels: the intra-State,

the regional, the supraregional and the worldwide. The first level will not
become established unless our Organization manages to find ways to support the
making of the new democratic States. The second will be possible if there is
agreement on an identity or a proximity of interests on the part of the States
involved in regional cooperation. Organizations such as the CSCE, the
Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States and an
alliance of the countries of the Black Sea basin could form the basis for the
third level. The fourth level involves establishing a coordinating system for
interactions on a world scale, in which the principal coordinator would be the
United Nations and its institutions.
This rostrum has always seemed very high to me. I used to feel how high
it was even when the the world was ready to hang on the every word of the
representative of a huge and mighty Power, whatever that word might be. That
is the privilege of the powerful, but I did use to try to make our words sound
like a message of good will rather than of malign force. Now that I am
speaking on behalf of a small and weak country, I feel how much higher this
rostrum has grown and what a lifeline it is for my homeland.
There was a considerable element of risk involved in my present ascent of
this rostrum: things are very bad indeed back home. The bombshells of hatred
are exploding all too often there. Those shells are aimed to destroy our
policy of democratically establishing and constructing an honest, just State
open to the world. Such explosions are all the more likely today, in the
run-up to parliamentary elections in which the people of the Republic of
Georgia must either endorse or reject our policy of democracy and freedom.
Nevertheless, I have come so that Georgia does not lose what is now its
only chance to tell the world about its hopes and aspirations, to confirm the

truth and refute the lie. I have come so that I can once again reaffirm my
commitment to the word we gave the world community. What of it that the scale
has diminished and the horizons have closed in? I am thinking, speaking and
acting in accordance with the same principles and norms I have stood up for
here for all these years past.
Finally and this will be my last personal confession I have missed
your company very, very much.
I have gone over the time-limit, but the way things are is that the
smaller the size and scale of a State, the more time it needs.
I thank you for hearing me out.


I should
like my first words in this great forum of the world Organization to be an
expression of our great pleasure at the unanimous decision of the Assembly
that you. Sir, should be the one to guide and direct its important work at the
forty-seventh session. Your brilliant record, your undeniable personal
prestige, your dedication to the ideals that inspire our Organization and the
fact that you come from a part of the world where impressive positive changes
are taking place are all signs that the United Nations, with determination and
enthusiasm, is in step with the great phenomenon of our era: the
reaffirmation of freedom as the driving force of history.
We also recognize the splendid job done by your predecessor.
Ambassador Samir Shihabi, who carried out his delicate task during a period of
important national challenges which our Organization met with determination
and with a sense of service.
The presence of a new Secretary-General has given the period since the
last session of the General Assembly a very special significance. This is an
excellent opportunity to express again to the world our profound appreciation

to the former Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, not only because of
the fine overall task he accomplished but more specifically because of his
selflessness and his effective participation in achieving the final peace
agreement in El Salvador, which he, his representatives and associates worked
towards with such effort and conviction. We are also moved when we recall how
that agreement was reached at the last minute of the Secretary-General's
mandate, and therewith the peace of El Salvador was linked with the name of an
illustrious Latin American of universal stature.
When the new Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, assumed his
functions, we immediately realized that his unequivocal intention would be to
continue to support, with his characteristic wisdom and experience, the
difficult and exemplary process in which we Salvadorans are involved. This
encourages us to remain faithful to past commitments and to believe that the
new dynamics in El Salvador are irreversible, provided that we have the
support of the international community.
On a number of occasions, and specifically in our message of
16 January 1992 during the signing ceremony in Chapultepec, Mexico, we have
said that peace in El Salvador is not just a matter of restoring normal
conditions - those that prevailed before the conflict but of establishing
peace of a new kind, unprecedented in our country. Besides being a civilized
way of ending armed confrontation, peace is a complex series of commitments
aimed at consolidating democracy in El Salvador. It is a means of providing
more opportunities for pluralist participation, a way to create
socio-political conditions for stability based on democratic legality among
all existing sectors and groups of society.

This agreement, termed by the United Nations a unique agreement, is being
implemented with the close cooperation of El Salvador and the international
community. Conditions specific to that country, together with world events
and in particular the end of the cold war, made it possible to conclude the
conflict in El Salvador in a satisfactory manner. And at this point we should
like to stress an issue that is of supreme importance: the subject of
democracy.
We have no doubt whatsoever that it has been the existence of the
democratic process in our country that has made it possible for the war to
gradually lose its historic vigour. It also made it possible to arrive at a
kind of solution that appears to be permanent, one that will permit the
building of peace, which is of course a long-term effort. The peace agreement
is sound and convincing to the Salvadorian people and to the entire world as
well, because it empowers and expands democracy. We would repeat here in this
great forum, as we have done on the three earlier occasions on which we had
the privilege of speaking the truth as we see it from this rostrum, that our
main challenge and our most significant task is to serve the gradual
democratization of El Salvador. In this manner we hope to contribute to
security, internal progress and the stability of Central America.
Our country has made major sacrifices and efforts to establish and
safeguard the democratic process. Our Government - and we say this with
legitimate satisfaction - has contributed boldly and relentlessly to the
consolidation of democracy in El Salvador. We will not waver even for a
moment, as we have recently demonstrated, in ensuring that this process moves
forward in the future for the benefit of an entire population that has, as a

result of great suffering, earned a stable peace, secure development and a
better future.
Our country's institutions have contributed greatly to all of these
efforts, but we should like to emphasize that two in particular have given us
their determined support: our political institution, the Nationalist
Republican Alliance, and the armed forces of El Salvador. They have given us,
and continue to do so, fundamental support in ensuring that democracy in El
Salvador becomes a reality and peace a concrete fact. We shall not tire of
saying that the people of El Salvador are the major protagonists in this new
and historic stage. All of us are involved in building an integrated society,
one that can jointly settle its differences and realize its aspirations. In
order to achieve this, peace must be the first priority. Without a stable
peace, freedoms could become fragile and progress uncertain.
We consider it essential that this process be carried out in accordance
with the terms of the peace agreement. Significant progress has been made in
implementing the corresponding commitments, starting on 16 January. Many
difficulties have arisen technical, logistical, financial and
political but, with the efficient support of the United Nations, we are now
in a position to conclude the crucial stage of the cessation of armed
confrontation on 31 October as scheduled.
On this solemn occasion we appeal to the international community
represented here, hoping that they will support our decision and our
determination to scrupulously respect this deadline. At that point, the
military structure of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)
will come to an end, because the Government has been fulfilling its various

political and constitutional commitments and will continue to do so in a
serious and responsible manner. We should like to move to another important
stage of the process, in which political freedom will determine the rate of
progress in our country, in all walks of life.

Our peace process, because of it¬´ characteristics and its potential,
stands as an example for others to follow. We are extremely pleased that in
El Salvador unprecedented events of great importance are taking place. The
role and performance of the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador
(ONUSAL) is one of those phenomena, and it is in keeping with the new role
that falls to the United Nations in the post-cold-war period.
In this connection, we fully support the concepts contained in the report
of the Secretary-General prepared in keeping with the statement agreed upon on
31 January of this year at the summit meeting of the Security Council. That
document, entitled "An Agenda for Peace", reflects the experience accumulated
by the Organization in the area of preventive diplomacy and the establishment,
maintenance and consolidation of peace. That experience is now guiding the
Organization. The case of El Salvador is one of the clearest and most
persuasive examples of the fact that our Organization is fulfilling the
responsibilities required of it by the events and dynamics of the times, and
it is doing so efficiently and opportunely within this new, increasingly
interlinked world where there is a growing sense of globalism.
In this connection, we emphasize that there is a strong trend not only
towards economic globalism but also towards democratization and the
safeguarding of peace throughout the world. Today no one is immune to the
conflicts that used to be called peripheral. The distortions that existed
until not so long ago, due to the permanent tension reigning in an
ideologically bipolar world, have given way to a much more realistic,
humanitarian approach to the world's problems: understanding the world as an
integrated zone of peace where even the most local conflict is now a concern
of the international community, which is speedily developing the ways and

means of creating effective cooperation in peacemaking efforts, without
resorting to the barbarism of intervention or the arrogance of unilateral
operations. The concept of the international policeman is, fortunately, being
replaced by something much more modern and constructive: joint agreement to
face acute crises that jeopardize international peace and stability.
This brings us back to the concept of democracy, which is the key topic
of our time. In this regard, we fully associate ourselves with the remarks of
the Secretary-General in his aforementioned report:
"Democracy within the family of nations means the application of its
principles within the world Organization itself. This requires the
fullest consultation, participation and engagement of all States, large
and small, in the work of the Organization. All organs of the United
Nations must be accorded, and play, their full and proper role so that
the trust of all nations and peoples will be retained and deserved. The
principles of the Charter must be applied consistently, not selectively,
for if the perception should be of the latter, trust will wane and with
it the moral authority which is the greatest and most unique quality of
that instrument. Democracy at all levels is essential to attain peace
for a new era of prosperity and justice." (A/47/277, para. 82)
We Salvadorians, immersed as we are in a process of radical, conscious
transformation of our society, make an unequivocal declaration of trust in the
United Nations by placing in its hands the vital task of verifying all peace
agreements. It is no exaggeration to say that few countries have placed such
confidence in the Organization. This shows our great desire for peace and
democracy, and at the same time it makes both us and the Organization
responsible. In other words, in the process in El Salvador we are all gaining

valuable experience, and we have no doubt that our original approach to
overcoming conflict and seeing to it that the solution serves as a political
and social platform for the future makes this one of the most important
landmarks in the process of transition that is taking place in the
international community today.
Salvadorians cannot afford to vacillate, nor can we be found wanting in
this great effort to heal our country of the deep-rooted bad habits of the
past and of the ravages of war. This commitment to our own history is also in
keeping with the spirit of our times, to which we feel so closely linked. The
fact that we are so involved in building a new national reality that goes much
deeper than an ideological revolution for it pragmatically recognizes change
and dynamism as the driving force behind social and political life - does not
inhibit us but, on the contrary, connects us to a world that is in a
surprising process of renewal. We are only now emerging from a paralysing
period of confrontation, so we do not yet know what policies and doctrines
will prevail in the future. But we do know that concepts such as political
freedom, social pluralism, market economics and international cooperation are
all in the forefront of people's thinking and action throughout most of the
world. After so many years of rhetorical preaching, today there are for the
first time sound indications that a genuine international community is being
forged - and this fills us with optimism and a sense of security.
That optimism and security do not prevent us from expressing our concerns
regarding the problems remaining with us, perhaps even more dramatically than
before, such as the deterioration of economic and social conditions which
continue to exist in the developing countries and the catastrophic situation
as regards the environment, which is threatening the very survival of mankind

on Earth. The existence of such problems is not limited to just a few
countries or just one region rather than others. As in the case of peace and
democracy, these are global issues, and for that reason this forum must deal
with them as matters of priority. It is no longer the nuclear nightmare that
frightens us, but rather the dying of nature, which we have mercilessly
abused, even to the point of endangering our own species. No longer is it the
power of the super-Powers that is such a threat to mankind's survival; it is
the ancient scourge of poverty that continues to erode the foundations of our
civilization, whose great and unshirkable task is now to protect the dignity
of all human beings without distinction as to race, culture or geographic
location.
The United Nations today, thanks to the emerging new world order, has a
responsibility to integrate the world, something that was unimaginable only a
short time ago. We believe that at this session, which is the first one truly
taking place in a post-cold-war atmosphere, the Assembly must make renewed,
imaginative efforts to overcome existing stereotypes in a world that became
accustomed to functioning as a kind of battlefield. If we could graphically
describe the international reality that should prevail in our day, we would
imagine all the nations of the world sitting around a table discussing, on an
equal footing, the problems that inevitably affect us all. The era of trench
warfare and walls is now behind us, much to the dismay of the skeptics and to
the delight of those who never really ceased to believe in the possibility of
a better world with freedom and democracy. Incredible though it may seem, we
are entering an era in which peace is no longer just a fine word with no real
meaning.

El Salvador is a small country, but it is a small, great country that
does not want to deprive itself of the great opportunity provided by peace.
That applies to ourselves, to our neighbours, to our natural cultural
community and to the world. Thus, we give priority to respect for human
rights; we are trying to organize our economy; we have definitively renounced
war as a means of dealing with internal or international problems. For that
reason, we are here, calling on the economically most powerful nations to
renew with actions their generous commitment to collaborate in the costly
process of peace in El Salvador so that it will not be thwarted by lack of
financial resources. The flow of external assistance to carry out the
concrete agenda of bringing about peace is at a critical stage. That is why,
from this rostrum, we renew our appeal for international solidarity to
contribute to consolidating peace without obstacles in El Salvador.

While the process is moving ahead in our country, and we are committed to
its doing so fully and consistently, regional developments are no less
promising. As a result of a decision of the International Court of Justice,
we have just settled an old dispute with the fraternal Republic of Honduras,
and we renew our unequivocal commitment to abide in good faith by that
decision. At the same time, we continue striving to promote regional
integration, especially with our Central American brothers. We believe in the
common destiny of Central America, and for that reason we are working in a
coordinated way to see to it that our region will be a zone of lasting
democracy, progress and stability. We believe more and more in the real
possibility of achieving a united Central America in which every country,
without losing its identity, develops its own potential. It is a great task
of the present with tremendous implications for the future.
We feel that we are members of the Iberian-American community of nations,
which, though it does not yet exist officially, is becoming a reality in
spirit and in the common aim of giving it shape. We have felt the beneficial
effects of solidarity among nations that share the same language and culture.
We have received and continue to receive enormous support from countries such
as Mexico, Spain, Venezuela and Colombia, the "Group of Four Friends", whose
contribution to achieving and consolidating peace is a shining page in our
history. We reiterate our appreciation to them and to other friendly
countries that have helped us in the great task of making El Salvador a new
country.
We express once again our conviction that the United Nations, now more
than ever, has a mission for the future. On its agenda two matters are at the
forefront: global peace and sustainable international development. We are

convinced that the United Nations, faced with those issues, will prove to be
what President Bush said two days ago in this forum it would be: an
Organization of truly united nations, for the first time since it was founded.
We are especially pleased to welcome the new States that have joined this
great family of the United Nations. Their presence, which enhances the status
of the Organization, is due largely to the great freedom movement that has
marked our time. We favour the principle of universality, meaning that all
the countries of the world, without exception, must be present in our
Organization and must contribute. Thus we offer our support to help ensure
that all pending cases and those that might emerge in the future will be
resolved positively.
El Salvador has devoted all its energies to the peace process, towards
whose success the United Nations is making such a decisive, efficient
contribution. We will not waver for a moment in promoting that process, which
is a matter of rebuilding the country and setting an example to the rest of
the world. Those of us who have been on the side of freedom and democracy all
along have been proved right by time. But that triumph is not ours; it
belongs to the peoples of the world who have already suffered too much not to
see, and soon, the fruits of progress, which are the only guarantees of
internal stability and peace among nations.


The forty-seventh session of the General Assembly
is being held at a particularly crucial moment, when our Organization will be
called upon to demonstrate innovative thinking and flexibility in the face of
the emerging challenges.
Against the background of the very important agenda that is before us,
let me congratulate Mr. Ganev on his unanimous election as President of the
General Assembly at its forty-seventh session. I am confident that his
professional competence and dynamism make him uniquely qualified to preside
over the Assembly. I wish to assure him of my delegation's full support in
carrying out his formidable task to a successful completion.
Let me also extend our heartfelt appreciation to his predecessor.
Ambassador Samir Shihabi of Saudi Arabia, for the exemplary manner in which he
conducted the deliberations of the forty-sixth session.
Permit me, on behalf of the Government of the Gambia and on my own
behalf, to express our heartfelt congratulations to the new Secretary-General,
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whom I have had the honour and privilege of knowing
for many years. As a distinguished scholar, an outstanding diplomat and a
person of exceptional character, Mr. Boutros Boutro-Ghali has in him those
very fine qualities of leadership that our Organization needs at this very
crucial period of its history. We in Africa are indeed honoured to have one
of our illustrious sons serve in this highly prestigious and important

position. I am confident, and I am sure I am speaking for Africa and for all
those who know Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, that he will live up to the very
high expectations we all have of him. His long and distinguished career in
the service of his country gives us reason for this trust.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to
his worthy predecessor, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, who during his tenure of
office contributed greatly to the strengthening of the United Nations,
allowing it to assume a lead role in promoting world peace and security. His
indefatigable efforts in pursuit of an atmosphere of understanding for the
solution of problems in different parts of the world are exemplary and deserve
our very deep appreciation. I wish him a happy retirement.
The Gambia notes with great pleasure the admission of the Republics of
Belarus, San Marino, Croatia, Slovenia, Uzbekistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan as new Members of the United Nations. I should
like to welcome them and congratulate them on their accession to full
membership of the United Nations. As they take their place in this comity of
nations, it behoves each of us to extend to them the hand of friendship and
support that characterizes this great Organization.
As we reflect on the activities of our Organization during the past
12 months, we are encouraged by the numerous actions and decisions that have
been taken in support of world peace and progress. Certainly, problems
continue to exist, and in some cases have increased in intensity and
complexity, but the full commitment of our Organization to resolving them
remains ever strong.
Other less conflictual but none the less important issues of concern to
humanity have also received attention. I would like, in this respect, to
refer to the historic Earth Summit, convened in Rio de Janeiro in June this

year. This meeting, which brought together leaders from all over the world,
marks the first major step taken by humanity to reflect upon and map out a
strategy for the survival of all species on Earth. It marks the beginning of
a more responsible attitude to the Earth and its resources. The Rio
Declaration, the Agenda 21 programmes and the Conventions on climate change
and bio-diversity all combine to lay the basis for a sustainable development.
We fully support the recommendations of the Conference and do hope that
the various programmes of Agenda 21 will receive adequate support and
financing to ensure their successful implementation. Of special interest to
our countries is the recommendation to set up an intergovernmental negotiating
committee to negotiate a convention on drought and desertification. We
strongly urge the Assembly at this session to take the appropriate measures to
allow the committee to commence its work as soon as possible.
This century has witnessed two world wars, which brought untold hardship
and suffering to mankind. The creation of the United Nations immediately
after the Second World War reflected the determination of the founding fathers
to spare future generations the scourge of war. We all know the story of what
followed. The cold war, with its debilitating effects on the capacity of the
United Nations, as well as the consequences of the destructive conflicts it
engendered, demonstrated the extent to which our dreams and hopes became a
nightmare. Today, mankind has been given an opportunity again to develop and
anchor peace and stability in this world. The current entente in the
international scene and the positive disposition of all nations vis-a-vis the
United Nations provide a valuable opportunity for our Organization to assume a
more forceful role in pursuit of world peace and stability. For it is only in
peace and stability that human development can progress satisfactorily. We

are very much encouraged by the important role the United Nations has recently
assumed, and would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
Secretary-General for convening the Security Council summit meeting, which
sought, among other things to promote greater understanding and cooperation
in the world. We are in full support of the new approach to conflict
resolution referred to as preventive diplomacy.
Peace and security in the world will remain elusive as long as we
continue to have centres of armed conflict that risk degenerating into
regional conflicts that threaten world peace and stability. The situation in
Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and other trouble spots around the world
constitute an important threat to world peace and stability. We will need the
collective resources and determination of the United Nations and all its
Member States to resolve these conflicts.

The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has deteriorated very seriously.
The summary execution of civilian members of the non-Serbian population and
the internment in concentration camps of thousands of people testify to gross
human-rights abuses. The Gambia joins other nations in strongly condemning
the perpetrators of these acts. We also condemn in no uncertain terms the
concept of "ethnic cleansing", which in every respect is reminiscent of Nazi
practices. It is totally unacceptable in this day and age to torture, kill or
send into exile innocent men, women and children because of their religious
beliefs. We will all be guilty if we stand by and see these atrocities being
perpetrated with impunity.
We fully appreciate and commend the bold efforts of the United Nations
and the European Community in their search for peace in the former
Yugoslavia. We salute the courage of all those taking part in humanitarian
relief missions, particularly the soldiers who risk their lives to ensure that
food and other relief items reach Bosnia and Herzegovina. We strongly believe
that unless the fundamental cause of the conflict is addressed, the tragedy
will continue. Serbian aggression against Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina
must be stopped.
We join the international community in calling on the United Nations to
act firmly by implementing effectively the relevant Security Council
resolutions on Yugoslavia, particularly resolution 757 (1992). The decision
of the General Assembly to deny Serbia and Montenegro the seat of the former
Yugoslavia, as contained in resolution 47/1 of 22 September 1992, is a step in
the right direction. We believe the United Nations should not hesitate to use
force to stop Serbian aggression, in conformity with the provisions of
Article 42 of the United Nations Charter. In the meantime, the creation of an

air corridor to protect relief supplies and innocent civilians from aerial
bombardment would provide a useful respite in a desperate situation.
The Gambia shares the concern of the international community over the
lack of progress in finding a lasting solution to the conflict in Somalia.
The scale of human tragedy remains a constant reminder of the horrors and
absurdities of war. We fully endorse the urgent and effective implementation
of Security Council resolution 767 (1992), which calls for the cessation of
hostilities, national reconciliation and unity in Somalia and the opening up
of the country to humanitarian assistance.
My delegation praises the laudable efforts of the United Nations, the
United States of America and relief agencies for the assistance they are
providing to the starving population of Somalia. We want to appeal to all
those who exercise some influence over the various warring factions to use
their influence now in support of Security Council resolution 767 (1992).
Without peace the humanitarian assistance will continue but so will the human
tragedy.
On the question of Liberia, the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) continues to grapple with the problem of effective implementation of
the Yamoussoukro IV accord in order to bring about lasting peace in Liberia
and to arrest the growth of destabilizing forces in the subregion. We
continue to appeal to all the parties concerned, in particular the leadership
of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, to adhere to the provisions of the
Yamoussoukro IV accord as further elaborated at Geneva in April this year. We
make a strong appeal to the United Nations and the international community to
give full support to the efforts of ECOWAS to bring about peace and stability
in Liberia.

With reference to South Africa, it is disappointing to note that the
euphoria and optimism that greeted the release of Nelson Mandela and other
prisoners have failed to materialize into a free, democratic and non-racial
South Africa. The suspension of the talks in the framework of the Convention
for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) and the continued acts of violence and
senseless killings, as highlighted in Boipatong township in June and in Ciskei
in September, call into question the commitment of the South African
Government. We would like to state again that the South African Government
bears a major responsibility for these acts of lawlessness. It will have to
demonstrate greater responsibility in ensuring the security of all South
Africans. It is time to turn this tragic page and allow discussions that will
bring peace, stability and progress to South Africa. We appeal to all the
parties to assist in this process.
We are following with keen interest the developments in the Middle East
peace process which started in Madrid almost a year ago. We sincerely hope
that the opportunity provided by that process will be taken up by all the
parties to ensure that the region, which has been denied peace for so long,
will ultimately enjoy a comprehensive and lasting peace on the basis of
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
The world has yet to become the haven of peace and stability we so
earnestly work for. The conflicts in Cambodia, Afghanistan and some of the
recently independent republics of the former Soviet Union reflect the very
difficult moments of transition. We are confident that with the full support
of the international community these difficulties will be overcome.
Another danger to world stability is poverty and lack of economic
development. The developing countries continue to be saddled with overriding

debt, low commodity prices and sluggish if not stagnant economies. Nowhere is
the situation more bleak and desperate as in Africa, where the cumulative debt
stands at around $27 2 billion, the approximate equivalent of 90 per cent of
the continent's gross national product. Debt-service obligations require
about $25 billion annually, representing 30 per cent of the continent's export
earnings. Failure to effect timely payments has led to increases in interest
payments, at the rate of over $1 billion a year.
I believe those figures are an eloquent testimony to the plight of Africa
today. The rest of the world must not remain insensitive to that plight. The
adoption at the forty-sixth session of the General Assembly of a new agenda
for the development of Africa in the 1990s has helped focus attention once
again on Africa's critical economic situation. We will need, however, to go
beyond words. In this connection I wish to echo the Secretary-General's
proposals for the cancellation of all official bilateral debts, the
cancellation of other semi-official debts such as export credits, and the
substantial reduction of debts owed to multilateral financial institutions,
which now account for 40 per cent of sub-Saharan debt servicing.
It is regrettable to note that these proposals, considered more
favourable to Africa than the Trinidad terms, have not yet received positive
and widespread acceptance from Africa's development partners. Africa, like
other developing regions, will require a substantial inflow of capital and
technology and access to international markets if the global partnership is to
have any meaning for us.

The Gambia shares with the rest of Africa this very heavy financial
burden, in spite of her efforts at economic recovery. In fact, the Gambia has
successfully undertaken an economic recovery programme, and has since
1991 started a programme for sustained development. The main policy
orientation of the programme for sustained development is the pursuit of
continuous adjustment with growth, with the objective of achieving economic
development in a liberalized market environment. This will allow mobilization
of the resources of the private sector to provide the investment that will
generate sustained economic growth and expansion. By expanding the productive
capacity of the economy, we hope to be able to support a significant
improvement in the living standards of Gambians.
The attainment of economic growth requires a favourable external
environment. Secondly, a conducive international economic and financial
environment will help resolve the international debt crisis, restore adequate
capital flows and create a more open world trading system, which will result
in sustained economic expansion and enhance private and public spending on
human development. We fully appreciate the very valuable assistance being
given by the United Nations, the international financial institutions and
friendly countries. However, there is a need for continued external
assistance in support of our development efforts. In this regard, we
fervently hope that the donors' conference for the Gambia, to be held in
Geneva on 13 and 14 October 1992, will be as successful as previous ones.
Today we are witnessing the emergence of a new world order grounded in
the principles of respect for human rights, political pluralism and
self-determination. This new world order, which is still unfolding, marks the
end of the cold war and the beginning of a strengthened role for the United
Nations.

In Africa, marching side by side with the economic problems has been the
desire for greater democratization and liberalization of political attitudes,
systems and dogmas. In the face of this new socio-political revolution, the
Gambia has consistently maintained its practice of the rule of law, and
adherence to parliamentary democracy, as exemplified by its successful and
regular conduct of free and fair elections since the attainment of
independence in 1965.
Under the wise and distinguished leadership of
Alhaji Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, the Gambia continues to advocate the
promotion of, and adherence to human rights practices all over the world. The
Gambia therefore welcomes the holding of the World Conference on Human Rights
in 1993. That Conference will not only afford all peace-loving people,
nations and institutions the opportunity to express their concern on human
rights issues, but will also serve as a means for the objective evaluation of
the world's human rights records and practices and an opportunity for us to
rededicate ourselves to the achievement of higher standards of human rights
practices throughout the world.
In full recognition of the universal application of human rights and
democracy, my delegation is pleased to note the implementation of General
Assembly resolution 45/164, which proclaimed 1993 the International Year for
the World's Indigenous People. This proclamation will further strengthen
international cooperation in seeking solutions to the problems confronting
indigenous communities in the areas of human rights, the environment,
development, education, and health, and we regard it as a first step towards
mobilizing greater international support and assistance for the
self-development of indigenous peoples and their communities.

The United Nations is particularly well placed to focus attention on
major issues of concern to humankind. Of special interest to us today is the
welfare of children, which was brought to the forefront by the World Summit
for Children. The Gambia pledges to continue to formulate plans, programmes
and laws to safeguard the rights and interests of children and women, who,
effectively, constitute the most important and productive category of our
population.
The Government of the Gambia fully supports the convening of the
forthcoming international conference on assistance to African children,
scheduled to take place in Dakar, Senegal from 25 to 27 November 1992. We
strongly urge the international community to lend support to that conference.
Mobilizing African and international support for the global goals for children
in the 1990s is one of the biggest challenges we now face as a world
community. Together we can make the conference a significant step in the
process towards achieving the goals of the World Summit.
Another major issue of global concern today is the question of AIDS and
HIV infections, which, in the last few years, have grown into a global
pandemic with no effective cure as yet. It has been estimated that, by the
end of this century, 40 million people will have been affected by the virus
and more than 10 million children will have become orphans. This is indeed a
gloomy prediction. The situation therefore calls for greater and more
sustained efforts in combating the AIDS pandemic. It calls for collective
global responsibility based on learning from, sharing with, and giving
assistance to each other.
My delegation realizes that the United Nations will be increasingly
called upon to undertake many more responsibilities in a world that is rapidly

changing. If it is to succeed in handling the growing complexities of today,
then it must be adequately structured to respond to the emerging challenges.
The Gambia has followed with keen interest the deliberations of the
substantive session of the Economic and Social Council in July 1992, and the
efforts to restructure the Council. Indeed, these efforts are part of the
larger and wider process of restructuring the United Nations system initiated
by the Secretary-General.
The Gambia welcomes the creation of the Department of Humanitarian
Affairs under the dynamic leadership of Jan Eliasson as
Under-Secretary-General and Emergency Relief Coordinator. The creation of
this Department is not only timely but crucial, given its role of providing
relief and solace to the millions of needy people all over the world,
especially in areas suffering from armed conflict, poverty, population
pressures, environmental degradation and human rights violations, in keeping
with the provisions and spirit of General Assembly resolution 46/182.
It is also gratifying to note that some of the recommendations of the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on the establishment
of a Commission for Sustainable Development and issues relating to the global
environment facility were considered and approved by the Economic and Social
Council. The addition of the high-level-segment debate in the plenary session
of the Council and the dialogue between participants that accompanied it is
also welcome.

We in Africa continue to support General Assembly resolution 32/197,
which calls for structural, administrative and financial reforms of the United
Nations system, particularly the strengthening of policy-making at the level
of the General Assembly in the economic, social and other related fields. As
we begin the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly, our minds are
still fresh with some of the relevant and important recommendations of the
Economic and Social Council on the economic and social issues which affect the
world and demand urgent attention.
We are at an exciting junction of history. The positive changes we have
witnessed in global political and economic trends are a clear manifestation of
mankind's desire for a progressive world and a better future. However, the
goals of global peace, security and progress will continue to elude us if
poverty, human rights violations and economic disparity, which are at the root
of many conflicts, continue to characterize our world. The United Nations has
a special role to play in combatting these evils. The Gambia remains fully
committed to joining hands with all nations to support the United Nations in
its crusade for a happier, more stable and prosperous world.


I wish
to congratulate Mr. Ganev on his election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at this session. He can be sure of the cooperation of the Cuban
delegation.
We shall soon be commemorating the five hundredth anniversary of the clash
between two worlds and the beginning of an era that was to transform radically
relations between nations. That dramatic and as yet unfinished piece of
history started in the Caribbean Sea and forever left its mark upon the fate
of the peoples of the area.
Our deepest root, which gave us life as a nation and a place in history,
is our rebelliousness. For centuries the Caribbean was the victim of the
brutal greed of all sorts of intruders, the crossroads of slave-traders and
pirates, of traffickers and invaders; violence and cruelty were its constant
scourges. But it was also witness to the heroic resistance of its peoples,
which time and again rose up, pushed by the powerful and anonymous force of
the Caribbean winds, in their eagerness to achieve their freedom. While the
plundering of its resources and the iniquitous exploitation of its people led
the Caribbean to its encounter with the rest of the world, it was the struggle
to abolish all kinds of servitude and to have no master other than our own
conscience, which shaped our profound and irreducible identity and allowed us
to discover ourselves.
The Assembly is meeting at a crucial moment of definition. Today, as
five centuries ago, we are faced with attempts to reshape the world and
reorder relations between nations. Today, as in the past, the idea is to
determine whether the future will allow human solidarity to flourish or
whether it will still be weighed down by selfishness; whether it will one day
lead to the emancipation of the dispossessed, or whether it will for ever
perpetuate their tragedy; whether we are on the verge of a new colonizing
adventure, or whether, at long last, hope will begin to emerge for the poor of
this Earth.
In recent years humanity has been surprised by a series of developments
which have radically changed important elements of international relations and
have led to an avalanche of hasty interpretations and conclusions promoted by
the unrestrained haste of the privileged and the naive optimism of many others.
The end of the cold war, and with it the lessening of the danger of a
nuclear holocaust, should not be used to attempt to conceal what everyone
knows. It is true that military confrontation between the super-Powers
which threatened mankind with extermination never happened, and that the
rancorous antagonism of yesteryear was transformed through the unilateral
incantation of a baffling kind of alchemy into complacent subordination and a
show of fondness. That that war never occurred is of course salutary and
deserving of praise, but to identify with that fact the emergence of universal
peace is an absurdity which can make sense only from the profoundly racist
perspective of the new conquerors.
The period which now seems to be coming to an end was for the third world
a period of hard-fought struggles for independence and freedom. While
threatening with a battle which never occurred, imperialists used
all their means and resources to invade, attack, repress and oppress the
peoples of the South; many of their sons and daughters fell in confrontations
which had nothing to do with the rivalries between the powerful, and they died
without knowing how that antagonism was to be transmuted into a bizarre
convergence.
Just as the existence of the cold war did not alter the fate of the
third world, its disappearance does not, so far, seem to be benefiting its
peoples. The previous balance of power that contained the opposing blocs and
avoided a direct military conflict between them did not prevent the practice
of war, aggression and intervention against the third world.
We have no reason to imagine that the effects of the present conditions
of unipolarity and hegemonism will be more favourable to our peoples. On the
contrary, dangers are greater than ever in the face of a triumphant ecstasy on
the part of those who are in possession not only of the largest military power
but also of an insurmountable historical ignorance and the most gross moral
callousness.
The cold war is disappearing, but the arms race is not being reduced in
parallel, nor are militarism and bellicose mentalities being abandoned. If
the danger of war has been reduced, why does the United States aspire to
continue developing its military superiority, as was recently announced by the
occupant of the White House? Against whom will the empire now direct its
weapons?
We hear unending rhetoric about the end of confrontation and the
beginning of a new era of international cooperation, but it seems to exist
only in the imagination of those so gullible as to believe it. If a spirit of
international cooperation does really exist and if the cold war has ended, why
are the military expenditures of the big Powers not being drastically reduced
and why are the resources thus released not being channelled to the promotion
of development in underdeveloped countries? How can it be explained that
now precisely now attempts are being made to reduce international
cooperation for development to an even more subordinate and hypothetical role,
further to diminish the already limited presence of the United Nations in that
field and also to introduce unacceptable conditionalities and restrictions?
The changes that have occurred between the countries of the North have
no meaning for the majority of the inhabitants of the planet. If those
changes are to make some sense for them, it is necessary to undertake decisive
and effective action against the hunger and poverty which affect hundreds of
millions of people in the third world; and against infant malnutrition and
incurable diseases which are daily taking the lives of thousands of children
in an ongoing and silent war that some choose to ignore.
The economic crisis, the external debt of the third world, which has
risen to the figure of $1.50 trillion, unequal exchange, and increased hunger
and poverty have never been greater amongst the immense majority of mankind.
Their effects are staggering even for the most solid economies of the world.
Open subsidies and other selfish policies threaten to impede the conclusion of
agreements which have been in course of negotiation for years to regulate
international trade and which may provoke disastrous confrontations between
the large economic Powers. This clearly demonstrates that the history of
capitalism cannot escape its terrible and self-destructive laws.
There is meagre cause for optimism at present, when many cannot even
defy the consequences of recalling the principles of the new international
economic order solemnly proclaimed by the Assembly in times that were
supposedly less favourable for international cooperation.
True, universal and durable peace will be possible only in a world full
of hegemony, based on the rights, interests and aspirations of all peoples, in
a world in which the purposes and principles of the San Francisco Charter will
become a reality and, in particular, in a world which pays full respect to the
sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and non-interference in the
internal affairs of States, self-determination of peoples, and the right to
development.
But to achieve this, it is indispensable to democratize international
relations and the United Nations, providing the Organization with the
conditions necessary for it to fulfil the mission for which it should exist.
The United Nations cannot be reduced to a simple instrument of
domination by the powerful. Member States must prevent that; if they do not
they would in practice be permitting its termination and the elimination of
all possibility of achieving an equitable and peaceful world.
We must not accept the Security Council's operating as a secret society,
turning its back on the Organization which created it and in whose name it
should be acting; we must not accept its assuming functions which it does not
have and which no one has conferred upon it. The Security Council's
composition, functions and modus operandi must be urgently examined in depth
so that it can become a truly representative body, so that the anachronistic
and anti-democratic veto privilege can be eliminated and transparency can be
introduced into its activities, while limiting them strictly to those set down
in the Charter, and so that it will fully respect the obligation enshrined in
the Charter to be accountable to the General Assembly, which, in turn, should
strictly fulfil its responsibility to exercise control over the Council.
The Security Council has no authority whatsoever to interpret the Charter
or to broaden the scope of its powers, or to carry out all the orders coming
from its surreptitious informal gatherings. We must not tolerate the use of
the Council by those who so frequently defile the ideals of democracy as an
instrument for carrying out a virtual coup d'etat in the United Nations. Nor
can we we allow ideas to take hold that would introduce the concept of limited
sovereignty and promote the creation of mechanisms that would result in
converting the Organization into a permanent source of intrusion, interference
and intervention, to the benefit of the interests of the powerful.
The Organization must be democratized in order to strengthen its role and
enhance its efficiency. To that end, it is indispensable to reinforce, not to
weaken, the responsibilities of the General Assembly as the sole body in which
all of us have equal responsibilities and which therefore has the capacity to
represent the international community as a whole.
During the tenth summit conference that we held at Jakarta early this
month, the non-aligned countries adopted a common platform to face the present
international situation and to ensure concerted action in the United Nations.
The Jakarta Message, the Final Document and the resolutions that were adopted
should become our tools to mobilize the third world in defence of its rights
and to organize our resistance to those who are attempting to impose a
self-styled new world order, which was conceived against, and without taking
into account the interests of, the peoples of the South and which would
constitute nothing but the installation on a global scale of the kind of
hegemonistic delusions upon the cinders of which this Organization was created.
The aims of those who are concocting the reorganization of the world,
with a view to dominating it, are becoming increasingly obvious.
Underdevelopment and poverty would be permanently reserved for the peoples of
the South, which constitute three quarters of humankind, and they would
continue to be the providers of wealth for the affluent minorities of the
North. International bodies would be converted into mechanisms for domination
and intervention to guarantee a world system where the powerful would impose
their corrupted ideas and values. The new conquerors are not bearers of the
cross; rather, they brandish the sword and the moneybag, and the only gospel
they preach is profits.
Cynically they proclaim themselves the representatives of a superior
society and they go so far as to attempt to present themselves as the very
image of democracy, freedom and human rights. With the same arrogance shown
by their colonialist ancestors, with the same haughtiness shown by their
fascist inspirers, today's hegemonists boast about the alleged superiority of
their societies, their way of life, their ideas, beliefs and values, and use
every means in attempting to impose them upon other peoples.
They are attempting to impose not only their ideas, but also their
"justice", which lacks the slightest equity and which, even within the
territory of the United States, and with an openly racist point of view,
pronounces the harshest sentences, including the death penalty, on, almost
exclusively, blacks and hispanics. What is the sense of, and how can we
condone, the decision of that country's Supreme Court which legalized the
right to kidnap anyone of any nationality in any part of the world? Has
mankind ever seen such an abuse of power and high-handedness at any other
stage in its history?
At the same time, encouraged by the setbacks of European socialism, they
are trying to decree the end of socialist ideals and to impose capitalism, in
its most uncontrolled fashion, as the sole, definitive and permanent model to
be applied around the world. They proclaim the so-called neo-liberal formulas
as dogma which everyone must observe and they do not even blush when they
portray themselves as having the exclusive recipe for mankind's prosperity and
happiness.
Millions of dollars that could be devoted to more noble purposes are
being spent today in selling those ideas. But the peoples of the third world
have not forgotten that it was the unrestrained voraciousness of capitalism
that compelled them to endure the long and harsh experience of colonialism,
that crushed them with racism and discrimination, that subjected them to the
backwardness and poverty still besetting them. Capitalism was and is the
essential cause of the evils afflicting our peoples; it can never be their
solution.
The euphoric promoters of so-called neo-liberalism are overcome with joy
when they see the bankruptcy of a number of socialist projects which, as is
well known, lasted barely a few decades and were tested in adverse conditions
and in comparatively less developed countries.
Those who exult over the failure of some socialist societies should be
capable of demonstrating that capitalism is solving the problems of mankind or
at least that it is doing so somewhere. After all, capitalism has been the
predominant system in the world for centuries and has come to full development
in some of the more wealthy countries. But, after more than 200 years of
capitalism in a rich, developed and powerful country such as the United
States, the population as a whole still lacks a health system; millions are
calling for employment, housing, education and protection in their old age or
are suffering the consequences of drug addiction, violence and other social
evils; and tens of millions are victims of the worst expressions of racism and
racial discrimination. The most powerful country has not been able in two
centuries to solve any of those problems through capitalism, although it not
only has been able to rely on its own wealth but also has been pitilessly
exploiting other peoples during that lengthy period.
Certain turncoats may kneel before that deceptive golden calf, but to
understand the failure of capitalism as a social project it is not necessary
to read Karl Marx one need only take stroll through the New York or Los
Angeles inner city. The American dream may dazzle some weak minds, but for
broad, and growing, sectors in this country and, above all, for tens of
millions of Afro-Americans, Latinos, native Americans and Asians, the
unemployed, the poor and the destitute - that dream has been, and is, a
bitter, sad and perpetual nightmare.
On what moral grounds can profoundly unjust societies present themselves
as a universal archetype when the inordinate consumption patterns and the
extravagance of their insolent minorities mock the plight of countless others
in their midst who are suffering a life as miserable as that of the poorest in
the third world? In terms of human solidarity they have nothing to teach us;
on the contrary, they have much to learn from us.
In truth, not only is the type of society that would be imposed upon us
intrinsically unjust and inhuman: it threatens the survival of the human
species - indeed, life itself on our planet. The irrational consumption
patterns of the wealthy exhaust non-renewable resources, poison oceans and
rivers, make the air in our cities unbreathable, adversely change the climate,
dangerously raise the sea level, irreparably damage the soil, destroy forests,
enlarge deserts and deepen the poverty of hundreds of millions of human
beings. The environment is also the victim of a relentless war that has
already caused the death of numerous species and is putting many others in
danger of extinction.
When will it be man's turn to fall victim to his own folly? For how long
will a lifestyle that condemns each and every one of us to death continue to
be worshipped?
I address this Assembly at what is, for Cuba, a particularly difficult
time. The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United
States against the Cuban people has been in force for more than 30 years, but
it is now being intensified and extended. While talking hypocritically of
peace and international cooperation, the Government in Washington forbids
foreign vessels involved in any business with Cuba to enter United States
ports and tries to compel corporations based in other countries to follow its
anti-Cuban policy. Thus it is grossly violating not only the most basic
rights of my people but also the sovereignty of other countries and the
fundamental principles and norms of international law.
While former adversaries become partners, and while the number of
countries to which Washington applies economic restrictions diminishes, the
budget and resources of the Government office entrusted with enforcement of
those restrictions have been increased, and it is publicly acknowledged that
those actions are geared towards reinforcement of the blockade against Cuba.
The United States obstructs Cuban economic and commercial activities world
wide. It strives to prevent us from purchasing oil, foodstuffs and medicines;
puts pressure on investors and businessmen; and, more than once, has been able
to intimidate others, and thus frustrate entirely legitimate operations, by
its stubborn and criminal attempts to starve our people into surrender.
Never before, other than in the course of war, has a people been
subjected to such rigorous, prolonged and total attack. This aggression is
being carried out against a small and poor country - a country with very few
natural resources, and no substantial sources of energy; a country whose
development prospects are totally dependent on foreign trade; a country that
receives no credit or finance from international organizations; a country to
which even various types of humanitarian aid are restricted. And now attempts
are being made even to prevent us from trading.
The blockade is being intensified at a time when Cuba is suffering an
extremely trying situation arising from the dissolution of the Socialist bloc,
the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the sudden and radical change in
relations with the countries with which we conducted 80 per cent of our trade,
as well as from the abrupt disappearance of the fair and equitable prices that
governed those relations. This has meant the loss of 70 per cent of Cuba's
purchasing power the figure having fallen from $8,139 million in 1989 to
$2.2 million this year. In truth, Cuba is confronted by a double blockade
that is becoming harsher and more implacable every day.
Indeed, the enormous damage to our economy has had inevitable
repercussions for the living standards and consumption levels of the
population, as well as for the country's production and development
programmes. In these grave circumstances the imperialists nurture the hope
that, by making their blockade tougher and more oppressive, they will be able
to create conditions of poverty and hunger and, thus, make our people
surrender. However, that is nothing but a foolish hope. Those who seek to
annihilate us are ignoring the fact that Cuba's main resource - its only true
wealth is its people.
Only a united, informed and resolute people, a people prepared to fight
for what it wants to achieve, a people whose social relations are governed by
equity and solidarity, can confront and overcome such adversity. Only in a
society such as that of Cuba could such disastrous conditions have occurred
without leading to the closure of a single school, to neglect of the health of
a single child or elderly man or woman, or to the abandonment of a single
citizen. Can the same be said of our rabid enemies or our hypocritical
critics?
There is no greater proof of the strength of our social system or of the
implacable resolve and unity of the Cuban people in defence of its revolution
than the heroic popular resistance to this imperialist onslaught. How many
countries have endured such a trial?
But this large-scale economic warfare is not the only action being taken
against Cuba. Part of our territory continues to be illegally occupied by a
United States military base, which is the source of frequent provocation; the
air above and the sea around the country are constantly being used for
manoeuvres by the mighty who assault us; more than 1,500 hours of aggressive
radio broadcasts are transmitted to Cuba weekly, and there have been
unsuccessful attempts to invade our television spectrum; the territory of the
United States is used openly and shamelessly, and with the apparent complicity
of the authorities of that country, for the purpose of carrying out terrorist
attacks against us; and Cuba is being subjected to a systematic campaign of
slander to distort the image of a country which the United States has not been
able to defeat and which refuses to renounce its independence.
As it has not been able to bend us to its will, imperialism threatens us
with extermination and endeavours to compel the rest of the world to acquiesce
to its genocidal infamy. The Yankee blockade is a brutal violation of the
rights of all the Cuban people and of international norms and the sovereignty
of other countries. It is, above all, a moral disgrace.
Those who think they can bring Cuba to its knees are mistaken. Our
people has travelled a long road to achieve its full emancipation. It started
its trek, totally alone, more than 120 years ago. Within its limited island
space, without allies, without the material support of any Government, it
struggled for three decades against a better and larger military force than
the total of the forces which Spain had used to combat rebellion in all its
other colonies. Attempts were made even then to isolate our people from the
rest of the world; even then the oppressor found accomplices; even then
attempts were made to compel our people to surrender because of hunger, and a
substantial part of our population was annihilated.
The Puerto Rican patriot, Eugenio Maria de Hostos, described those
painful times for Cuba in the following words:
"It is necessary to imagine oneself in that terrifying situation,
the most tragic ever faced by any people: deprived of everything itself,
while its enemy possesses all the power and resources of civilization;
abandoned, while its enemy is abetted; disdained, while its enemy is
flattered by the complicity of all. It is necessary to be able to feel
all the torments of the agony of many years to understand how long a
revolution lasts, to realize how much time passes, to understand the
prodigious resistance of the combatants, to appreciate their heroism, to
be worthy of admiring those admirable men ...
"It is necessary to live in such infamous times, stumbling through
the darkness of injustice, to feel for those men, elevated by their own
efforts to the dignity of complete men, all the enthusiastic reverence,
all the impulsive admiration, inspired by those capable of heroically
representing the highest virtues of mankind."
Those times referred to by Hostos were certainly even more difficult for
our people. Today we are facing an enemy more powerful than Spain was then,
but we have a united, brave people, worthy heirs of those combatants who never
retreated despite the greatest misfortunes. We will never betray their
memory; we will never renounce a fatherland which we liberated with rivers of
blood and sacrifice.
We also rely on the solidarity of peoples. We know that the oppressed,
the exploited and the victims of discrimination on this Earth who place their
hopes in Cuba's survival are many.
For our dead, and for those who hope for a worthy life, we will continue
resisting. We will not betray the mandate of our ancestors and the confidence
of peoples. We will prove ourselves capable of resisting and we will know how
to resist.
We will continue to pursue our most sacred duty: to save the fatherland,
the revolution and socialism. For their sake, we shall continue our struggle,
without hesitating, despite all obstacles, hard and difficult though
circumstances may be; ever onward to victory.