It is my high honour to address the
Assembly today, both as the Chairman of the South
Pacific Forum and as the President of the Federated
States of Micronesia.
First of all, Mr. President, for the South Pacific
Forum and for my country, I wish to express sincere
congratulations on your election to the highest position
one can hold in this body. We are confident that your
strong experience and leadership will provide the rudder
that is needed here to steer us safely through the many
challenges that lie ahead.
I also thank the President of the General Assembly
at its fifty-second session, Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko of
Ukraine, for his skilful guidance throughout the past year
during most difficult and troubling times.
Recognition also must be given to the Secretary-
General, Mr. Kofi Annan, whose tireless and effective
work in both leadership and coordinating roles is well
known to all of us.
The Federated States of Micronesia was honoured to
host the twenty-ninth summit of leaders of the South
Pacific Forum in Pohnpei on 24 and 25 August. As a
result, I have the privilege and heavy responsibility of
reporting to this organ the consensus achieved by all 16
member countries of the Forum at that summit.
The South Pacific Forum is a unique institution
involving independent and self-governing States which

share a very special part of the world. Forum member
countries differ greatly in land area, ocean area, population,
resource endowment, economic development and
industrialization, social structures, cultures and living
standards. However, we all share a common bond as Forum
members and have established agreed positions on a wide
range of issues which transcend our diversity. We have also
agreed to work together to pursue cohesion, stability and
well-being in our countries.
At the recent summit, the heads of Government and
representatives of the 16 member countries reviewed
progress and took decisions on a number of issues
considered important to the region, which were generally of
a political, economic or environmental nature. I will
mention briefly some of the subjects that were discussed
and refer for further details to the Forum communiqué,
which is to be issued as a document of this General
Assembly.
The overall theme of the Forum?s summit this year
was “From Reform to Growth: The Private Sector and
Investment as Keys to Prosperity”. In this regard, the
Forum agreed that efforts should be made to ensure
macroeconomic stability by improving fiscal discipline,
further promoting public sector reforms and broadening the
tax base. It also emphasized the need to introduce a wide
range of policy, legal, regulatory and institutional reforms
which provide the private sector with a more favourable
and competitive business environment.
Leaders noted that good overall progress has been
made in the implementation of the Forum Economic Action
Plan, which aims at strengthening the economies of the
island countries. This progress was made despite such
difficulties as capacity constraints facing some members,
the backdrop of region-specific difficulties, notably drought
and other disasters, and the problems faced by member
countries on account of the Asian economic crisis. Specific
recommendations were endorsed concerning the region?s
response to undesirable economic activities, the promotion
of competitive telecommunications markets, the
development of information infrastructure and work related
to the Forum Free Trade Area.
On a related matter, the Forum revisited the objective
of having the United Nations adopt a vulnerability index,
with the aim of having such an index included among the
criteria for determining least developed country status and
deciding eligibility for concessional aid and trade treatment.
It was noted with pleasure that the United Nations
Economic and Social Council had agreed to defer
consideration of Vanuatu?s graduation from least
developed country status for one year, pending further
consideration of the vulnerability index issue, and that the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
have created a task force on the subject. While these steps
have been important, much work remains ahead to gain
full international recognition of vulnerability in its various
manifestations as obstacles to the sustainable development
of small island developing States.
The Forum solidly reaffirmed its previous
endorsement of the Barbados Programme of Action for
the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States as a comprehensive framework with great potential
for the region, and noted the efforts under way for its
implementation, but that much remains unaddressed. It is
believed that the special session of the General Assembly
in 1999 to review the Plan of Action will represent an
important opportunity for the region. Support was
expressed for national, regional and transregional
activities in the run-up to the special session, both to
better position ourselves for effective participation and to
raise pre-sessional awareness of the situation of small
island developing States.
One issue that received a great deal of attention at
this year?s Forum summit was that of global climate
change, and in particular the risk of sea level rise brought
on or hastened by human activities affecting the
atmosphere. The Forum?s membership includes two annex
I parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. All the rest, including several which are
not United Nations Members, are small island developing
countries and committed members of the Alliance of
Small Island States (AOSIS). We are driven in that regard
by deep concerns about our very survival.
It was encouraging and perhaps indicative to others
that despite a wide diversity of interests on this issue the
Forum succeeded in reaching a comprehensive position.
The Forum recognized the legally binding commitments
agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol as a significant first step
forward on the path of ensuring effective global action to
combat climate change. The Forum encouraged all
countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol and to work towards
its earliest possible ratification. In particular, noting that
the Framework Convention obliges developed country
parties to take the lead in combating climate change and
the adverse effects thereof, the Forum stressed the
importance of implementing measures to ensure early
progress towards meeting the commitments in the Kyoto
Protocol. This applies particularly to the United States,
2

the European Union, the Russian Federation, Japan, Canada
and other annex I emitters.
The Forum called for substantial progress at the
upcoming fourth session of the Conference of the Parties to
the Framework Convention in Buenos Aires in establishing
the rules for international implementation mechanisms —
particularly emissions trading, the clean development
mechanism and joint implementation — to ensure that these
mechanisms assist the effectiveness of greenhouse-gas
reduction efforts.
It was also noted that an effective global response to
the problem of climate change will require ongoing active
cooperation and strengthened action by all parties, taking
account of their common but differentiated responsibilities
and their respective capabilities. The Forum stressed the
urgent need to initiate a process to develop procedures and
future time-frames for wider global participation in
emissions limitation and reduction in which significant
developing country emitters would enter into commitments
which reflect their individual national circumstances and
development needs. But remember, developed countries
must take the lead.
The Forum noted with relief and gratitude the
recognition in the Kyoto Protocol of the importance of the
adaption needs of small island States. The leaders called for
adequate resources to be generated through the
implementation mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol and the
Global Environment Facility for the full range of adaption
measures. The Forum countries anticipate maximizing the
benefits to them from such implementation measures and
mechanisms through the work of another regional
organization, the South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme.
Respectful of the wide range of reactions and emotions
surrounding the outcome of Kyoto, and recognizing also the
difficult challenges that will face the delegates at Buenos
Aires, it is suggested that the Forum consensus should be
taken as a harbinger of the possibilities for finding common
ground on a larger playing field — one on which the
ultimate fate of all of us may be decided.
Before I leave the subject of climate change, I would
like to express gratitude to the donor nations that responded
recently to the suffering visited upon Pacific island peoples
by the climatic phenomenon of El Niño. Whether or not
scientists can decide conclusively that the recent intensity
of the El Niño effect is a symptom of global climate
change, it is a fact that entire island populations found
themselves in a situation where their very survival
depended on the willingness of other countries to provide
emergency assistance. We will always be thankful that
such assistance was forthcoming.
While we express our appreciation, we are also
mindful of the situation of the devastation that has been
created by Hurricane Georges in the southern United
States, and we are hoping and praying that this
phenomenon will pass, giving relief to the people.
Another issue of immediate and continuing
environmental concern to our Forum region is the
ongoing practice by industrialized Powers of shipping
radioactive wastes back and forth through our economic
zones in the advancement of their own national interests
and priorities, irrespective of our strenuous and continuing
protests. The Forum noted that some strides have been
made in exchanging information on these shipments, but
the risks remain. At the very minimum, we continue to
seek a strong regime of prior notification to and
consultation with coastal States on planned shipments of
hazardous wastes, and the development of a regime to
compensate the region for actual economic losses caused
to tourism, fisheries and other affected industries in the
area.
The Forum leaders could not help but note with
alarm the recent tests of nuclear devices by India and
Pakistan. They expressed grave concern that the recent
nuclear tests constitute a threat to the international process
of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty. It will be recalled that the region encompassed by
the Forum members has perhaps greater standing than any
other region in the world to express alarm over the
continued testing of nuclear devices. The Forum members
have endured and continue to endure the human suffering
that has resulted from the curse of nuclear proliferation
and testing. The Pacific island countries are taking action
within the region to counter the presence of nuclear
weapons and the testing of nuclear devices through the
South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. We call upon the
United States to ratify that Treaty.
Finally, as regards the South Pacific Forum — and
I stress that I do not mention here every issue that was
discussed or covered in the communiqué — I want to
relate the Forum?s pleasure in drawing attention to the
signing of the Noumea Accord between the Government
of France and the concerned parties in New Caledonia.
This Accord represents a tremendous accomplishment by
3

all involved in moving forward the process of self-
determination for New Caledonia, whatever the ultimate
outcome of that process might be.
I have already consumed much of my time in
commenting on issues that concern the South Pacific Forum
as a group. Briefly now, I ask that you focus your attention
on the situation of my small island developing country.
The Federated States of Micronesia is approaching the
end of the millennium with a sense of unsettlement. We
will be among the first to celebrate the beginning of the
new epoch, but, in an immediate sense, what does this
celebration promise for us? Our developmental process
began only a few years ago, and the barriers we face in
terms of need for technology and manpower development,
scarcity of resources, our remote location and small
population — to name only a few — are beyond our
capability to overcome alone.
We are indeed fortunate to be receiving substantial
assistance from the United States and other bilateral
partners, but our long-term future cannot and should not
depend upon bilateral assistance. Perhaps it is not realistic
for us to plan for complete self-sufficiency, but we do want
to become, and we must become, more self-reliant.
We in the Federated States of Micronesia have some
concerns that the emphasis of effort in the United Nations
is being somewhat drawn away from the balance between
addressing the overall interests of all countries and at the
same time particularly assisting developing countries to
move towards their rightful condition. In other words, we
fear that the traditional role of the Organization in assisting
less advanced countries with their development could be
marginalized. I use the phrase “drawn away” because the
shift to which I refer would not be something that leaders
sat down and purposefully decided on. In large part, given
the breadth of the Charter, the United Nations is simply in
danger of becoming overwhelmed by its responsibilities. As
regional and national conflicts proliferate, drug trafficking
flourishes, terrorism looms as an ever more dangerous part
of our daily lives, and as the global environment becomes
increasingly threatened, the demands on the time and
resources of this body and its Members to confront
immediate problems are compelling.
But while the need to move towards a closer parity
between the living standards of the North and the South
necessitates long-term solutions, it cannot be forgotten that
in the long term the accomplishment of that goal will do
much to address the problems to which I have just
referred, which seem beyond the reach of immediate solutions.
Meanwhile, as developing countries, we too must do
our part. We must create the flexible, though outward-
oriented, economies that can maximize the benefits of the
global economy in which we also exist. At the same time,
we must not forget that our national identities and unique
national and subnational social, political and economic
situations demand a proactive approach that avoids
blindly jumping on the bandwagon of the latest
development initiatives in order to reap the perceived
benefits of donor assistance. In realizing that mistakes
inevitably are made and opportunities lost, we must not
lose our sense of self-confidence or permit ourselves to
become overly prone to accepting the dictates of well-
meaning donor partners whose understanding of our
situation may not be complete.
But we must also remain very alert to the need for
course correction and we must endure periods of
structural, institutional and even behavioural change. The
process is now ongoing in my country. With the
assistance of the Asian Development Bank and donor
partners, we are well along in implementing a two-
pronged programme that involves Government and public
enterprise reforms, on the one hand, and private sector
reforms, on the other. On the Government side, we are
reorganizing and downsizing our institutions and
improving our tax structure in order to move along the
adjustment path to sustainable finances and rational
service levels. On the private sector side, our reforms are
designed to improve the economic environment for
private sector growth, especially in those productive
activities that earn dollars from abroad. This means,
among other things, reducing the role of Government in
productive activities and restructuring our legal and
regulatory environment to encourage private sector
activity and investment, especially foreign investment.
Despite our determination to carry through this
effort, we know that it alone will not produce
development. It will facilitate development and make our
application of development assistance far more effective.
But now, perhaps more than ever, we will require the
patience, understanding and continued support of donor
partners and international institutions, which have been so
instrumental in helping us to reach this point.
This is to be a session during which two very
important anniversaries are celebrated: 50 years of United
Nations peacekeeping and 50 years of the Universal
4

Declaration of Human Rights. As to the first, I wish to
honour those who served in the peacekeeping operations of
the past 50 years, especially those who lost their lives in
the service of the United Nations. As to the second, the
vital role played by the Declaration hardly needs my
endorsement; but I would refer to my statement at the 1993
Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, when, in
speaking with respect to those who have given their lives
in the cause of human rights, I said:
“Those very heroes would be among the first to say,
'Let?s look into the past only for what we can learn
from it. The job is not yet done, and our enemy grows
stronger.'”
It only remains for me to refer to the activities of the
international community and this body having to do with
my country?s predominant resource — the ocean. This is
the International Year of the Ocean. The world can little
afford to miss the opportunities presented by this occasion
to focus on our planet?s most prevalent yet least understood
physical mechanism. The single best example of that
dangerously incomplete understanding surely is the ocean-
generated, worldwide disaster of El Niño, which occurred,
ironically, this year.
For obvious reasons, the peoples of Micronesia
secured involvement in the long negotiations that led to the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea even
before we emerged from Trusteeship status. We have
continued that involvement as a party to the Convention
and now call on all States to ratify the Convention and
participate fully in the process. We support the Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea, as well as resolutions aimed at
eradicating the practice of driftnet fishing and unauthorized
fishing in areas of national jurisdiction. We urge action to
reduce by-catches, fish discards and post-harvest losses.
Looking towards the Assembly?s special session on the
Barbados Programme of Action, and also towards next
year?s consideration of oceans by the Commission on
Sustainable Development, we encourage the recognition of
linkages between the various related issues and the need for
more integrated treatment. By necessity, I speak of linkages
and integration, which are familiar terms of usage within
the United Nations system but there is nothing routine
about the devastations of El Niño that were visited upon my
country?s people earlier this year and upon other peoples
around the world. I can think of no better example of the
need for the recognition of linkages in terms of ocean and
climatic issues and the necessity for the application of
integrated response measures.
In closing, I should like to refer to the fact that, in
recent years, as the problems of our increasingly complex
and globalized society appear to have escalated, it has
become fashionable in some quarters to question whether
the United Nations Organization is worth maintaining. It
is as though the world?s peoples expect that the worth of
this Organization is to be tested by its efficiency in
“fixing” a set of global problems, after which,
presumably, we would all live happily ever after. That
mistaken notion is grounded in the assumption that
international cooperation exists only for immediate
problem-solving.
Speaking for a relatively new Member country of the
United Nations, allow me to suggest humbly that the
repetition of mistakes of whatever scale and the creation
of new crises along with every step forward is elemental
to the human condition. The Charter of this Organization,
monumental as it may be, is still a document designed by
and for human beings on this planet and must be judged
and applied in light of the human experience. The United
Nations should not be expected to work itself out of a
job.
The people and the Government of the Federated
States of Micronesia deeply respect the past
accomplishments of the United Nations and look forward
to continuing to meet our commitments to it, even though
our contributions may appear small.


The Dominican Republic wishes to express
its gratitude for the gestures of solidarity expressed by
friendly countries with regard to the passage of the terrible
hurricane, Georges, which struck our country yesterday.
Furthermore, we appeal to the generosity of the
international community to provide cooperation with a view
to facing both the immediate emergencies of the population
affected by this phenomenon and the process of national
recovery.
The delegation of the Dominican Republic, on behalf
of the Government presided over by Mr. Leonel Fernández,
wishes to extend its warmest congratulations to the
President of the General Assembly, the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Uruguay, on his well-deserved election to preside
over the fifty-third session, which is taking place at a time
of great structural changes in global society and within our
Organization. We also wish to thank Mr. Hennadiy
Udovenko, who presided over the deliberations of the last
session of the General Assembly with such skill. Our
gratitude goes also to the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi
Annan, for his devotion and efforts to guide the
Organization along the path towards modernization and
reform, which will strengthen us as we reach the new
millennium.
The changes in the realities of the world in which
we live make it necessary to revise international policy.
In this respect, the United Nations, being the universal
forum, must be strengthened and renewed by increasing
its activities in areas such as peace and security of
nations, the protection of human rights and the
environment and cooperation for socio-economic and
cultural development.
Faithful to its principles, the United Nations must
continue to encourage and deepen its programme of
reforms, taking into consideration not only the complexity
of the current reality, but also the future development of
regulations aimed at relieving social marginalization and
ethnic and religious tensions, which jeopardize the priority
objectives of peace and development for our peoples. The
Dominican Republic expresses its firm support for the
negotiations and consultations on the programme of
reform. We trust that the process will culminate in
substantial changes in the various organs of the United
Nations, enhancing their effectiveness and leading to a
more democratic, transparent and representative
Organization, thus ensuring its ability to act to achieve its
present objectives.
Fortunately, the constant threat of a nuclear war has
diminished. Today, however, we are faced with the
challenge of combating together, and on a global scale,
hunger, poverty, environmental destruction and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and
encourage equitable development and free societies. We
must also struggle to lay the bases of economic growth.
There are other security problems that require
decisive action: international terrorism, organized crime
and illicit trafficking in arms and drugs. We must create
reliable instruments to put an end to these evils and
achieve acceptable levels of security for our citizens so
that they can live in peace. The politics of security is
inspired by the vision of a democratic world that practices
solidarity. Security must be achieved on the basis of
political, economic, social and ecological cooperation. The
principle of sovereign equality of States and the belief
that conflicts of interest must be resolved peacefully
require global cooperation because security can be
achieved only with the participation of all States.
41

That task falls principally to the Security Council. The
Dominican Republic believes it necessary to enlarge the
Council by creating new seats for the regions of Latin
America, Asia and Africa, thus strengthening it in the
fulfilment of its functions and allowing for greater
representativity.
The Dominican Republic believes that international
peace and stability are prerequisites for a secure future for
mankind. Democracy and respect for human rights, together
with justice and respect for the law, are the surest ways of
preserving peace. General acceptance of these principles
cannot be imposed, but it can be actively promoted.
The crisis spots that afflict large segments of the
world?s population continue to be of concern to many
States. We emphasize the need to strengthen mechanisms
of dialogue and negotiation in conflict areas such as the
Balkans, the Middle East and the Great Lakes region in
Africa. With regard to the Republic of China on Taiwan,
the Dominican Republic reiterates the positions presented
by its President, Mr. Leonel Fernández, with regard to the
need for the international community to consider the
importance of that country, due to its geographic location,
for the peace, security and prosperity of that region. We
favour constructive dialogue between both sides of the
Taiwan Strait to bring about understanding and mutual
cooperation. We reiterate that the parallel participation of
both countries in the United Nations would be conducive to
the maintenance of peace.
The Dominican Republic is also committed to the
process of nuclear disarmament and vigorously protests the
recent nuclear tests, as these can endanger world peace. We
reaffirm the need for strict respect for international treaties
on the prohibition, emplacement and testing of nuclear
weapons, in the atmosphere, in the oceanic subsoil and on
the ocean floor. We urge nuclear-weapon States to use and
handle those weapons responsibly as the only protection for
those of us who do not have that type of defence. The
preservation of world peace demands that Member States
of the United Nations establish new nuclear-weapon-free
zones and protect those already existing as a guarantee of
security.
Concern for the preservation of a zone free of nuclear
contamination is shared by the nations of the Caribbean,
which is used as a transportation route for toxic and nuclear
wastes. For those countries among us that depend largely
on tourism based on sun and beaches, the coastal water
quality is vital to that important sector of our economies.
Ongoing trafficking in illicit arms represents another
threat to security. The arms build-up must definitively be
stopped. The relevant international conventions signed by
the Dominican Republic are very important, such as the
one on illicit trafficking in conventional weapons.
Peaceful settlement of conflicts by means of
dialogue and accord is the best method to eliminate the
use of force in political relations within and among
Member countries. For that reason, it is necessary to
enhance the efforts and mechanisms recognized by
international law in order to resolve international
conflicts. In that context, the Dominican Republic accepts
and defends multilateralism as the appropriate way of
achieving consensus on the main problems that afflict the
world population. Poverty, drug-trafficking, terrorism,
inter-ethnic and territorial conflicts are problems that must
not be dealt with unilaterally.
For that reason we support the strengthening of
established international systems of justice. The signing
of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is
urgently needed to achieve these ends. We believe that
the instruments to protect peace must be used before
conflicts occur. The United Nations must take preventive
action and respond rapidly and effectively to avoid later
consequences. In that respect, the Convention on the
elimination of anti-personnel landmines, signed by many
Member States of the United Nations at Ottowa, Canada,
constitutes an important step and commitment towards the
consolidation of mechanisms for world peace.
Firmly based on the principle of encouraging the
peaceful resolution of disputes and the search for peace
and security in our region, the Dominican Republic has
promoted the strengthening of its neighbourly relations.
For the first time in more than half a century, a
Dominican President visited the Republic of Haiti. That
event and the agreements reached favour the efforts
undertaken by the democratic Governments of both States
through dialogue and accord, which is the best way to
approach their common problems.
It is in this new context of our bilateral relations that
we wish to appeal to the international community to
continue to provide support to Haiti. The need that
brought about the commitment of the United Nations to
the recovery of our neighbouring country still remains.
The Dominican Republic has met the challenges of
world changes at the end of this century. The restoration
of diplomatic relations with the fraternal country of Cuba
42

constituted an inevitable step that formalized our long-
lasting relations with Cuba.
Our country seeks inclusion in the integrationist trend
in our geographic and geopolitical area. Thus, this year we
signed two free-trade treaties, one with the five countries of
Central America, and the other with the 14 members of the
Caribbean Community. Both agreements are modern,
advanced and comprehensive, as they deal with trade in
goods and services and with investment and are in keeping
with the principles of the World Trade Organization. They
are conducive to economic growth, the creation of more
and better jobs and improvement in the quality of life of
our citizens.
Other clear signs of this regional rapprochement and
participation are the two presidential events held in our
country. In November 1997 the city of Santo Domingo was
the site of the extraordinary summit of heads of State of the
Central American countries, including Belize, as well as of
the Dominican Republic, and more recently, in August of
this year, of the extraordinary meeting of heads of State and
Government of the Caribbean Forum. Both meetings led to
agreements and concrete positions regarding hemispheric
and global challenges that our region must confront.
At the same time, we have tightened our economic,
political and development ties with the other nations of our
region, through the presence of our President, Mr. Leonel
Fernández, at the Summit of the Americas and the Ibero-
American Summit through bilateral visits and exchanges at
the presidential level with the United States, Mexico,
Venezuela and Colombia, countries with which we
traditionally share close bonds. These regular presidential
exchanges have led to consensus on basic topics on the
international agenda and have deepened our levels of
cooperation.
Allow me now to speak out the values of democracy
from a basically social approach, since people are the true
and ultimate raison d?être of democracy. Human rights and
fundamental freedoms will be fully respected and
guaranteed only when each citizen has a reasonable life
expectancy with access to health systems and the
opportunity for education in a healthy ecological
environment.
As is well known, in order to achieve these objectives,
large public expenditures in these areas are necessary. Two
factors make this difficult: the external debt, a heavy
burden which has dragged us down since the 1980s, and the
current financial crisis, which affects various countries of
the world, including some in Latin America. Both factors
drain away resources that could have financed social
development in this part of the world. The consequences
are obvious. Unable to improve the living conditions of
our people and help them become integrated into the
global economy, poverty grows and democracy and
stability are weakened.
The greatest problem facing the international
community is how to deal with the enormous economic
and social imbalance from which most Member States
suffer, with the gap between the rich and the poor
countries and with the growth in global poverty. The role
of the United Nations should be strengthened in
formulating and coordinating policies for cooperation and
in providing technical and financial assistance to
developing countries.
Human resources must take priority during the
current transformation of the international, political and
economic order. Women in particular must play an
important role, as they constitute a dedicated, responsible
and active workforce and give us reasons to see
humankind as being at the centre of development and
progress.
The Dominican Republic understands that
strengthening the role of women in the political, social
and economic life of Member States is essential if we are
to reduce poverty and social inequality and promote
democracy and sustainable development. That is why it is
essential to give priority to policies and programmes that
broaden women?s participation in these areas.
We vigorously support the objectives and work of
the United Nations International Research and Training
Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW).
The plans to improve the contribution of women to the
development of their countries, in accordance with their
own needs, set up when INSTRAW was created,
continues to be of primary importance and deserves
continued support from Member States.
Creating a new international order is a political
challenge. The conditions for this new order require the
multilateral system to guarantee security and governability
within the framework of respect for human rights. In
celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which has been a guiding
light for building a more just world, we hope that respect
for human rights will become daily practice for all
people.
43

In conclusion, we believe that the United Nations must
reflect on and accept the changes that are necessary for our
Organization. That is why we enthusiastically support the
reform programme, which will hope will respond to the
expectations of a United Nations in tune with our time.


Allow me at the outset to congratulate
Mr. Opertti on his accession to the presidency of the
General Assembly at this session. His election is a tribute
to his friendly country and an expression of confidence in
his ability to shoulder this great responsibility.
I also take this opportunity to express our deep
appreciation to Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko for his skilful
guidance of the deliberations of the previous session of
the General Assembly. Furthermore, I would also like to
express my country?s high appreciation to Secretary-
General Kofi Annan for his initiatives, which have helped
ease tensions in a number of regions, and for his efforts
in making a series of serious proposals for the reform of
the United Nations and to reactivate its role, thereby
allowing it to perform the functions entrusted to it by the
Charter.
The United Nations is the only Organization which
enjoys universal membership. That is why it is the sole
forum qualified to deal with urgent international, political,
economic and social problems. To address these questions
effectively, it is essential, first and foremost, to observe
the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which
must govern both the work of the Organization and the
conduct of its Members. Our commitment to the
principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in the
internal affairs of States and abstention from the threat or
use of force requires us to oppose the ambitions and
practices of certain countries that seek to impose their
hegemony and influence and to monopolize privileges.
The mandated powers of the General Assembly, in
particular, should be expanded to allow it to play its
rightful role, which is based on equality among all its
members and on the fact that they all deliberate on an
equal footing, including in their consideration of questions
of international peace and security. It would be helpful in
this respect to establish a mechanism to enable the
Assembly to oversee the work of other organs, including
the Security Council, and to hold them accountable to it.
Any wealthy country in arrears that cares about the
United Nations should pay those arrears immediately and
unconditionally, because they are to blame for the
17

financial deterioration affecting the activities of the
Organization.
The reform of the United Nations will remain
incomplete without reforming the Security Council to
eliminate the privilege of the veto power. Historically and
in terms of justice, equality and democracy, there is no
longer any justification for that power. My country was the
first to call for the abrogation of the veto power in the
second half of this century. Moreover, it is essential to
remove the current imbalance in the membership of the
Security Council, not by granting certain countries
permanent membership, but through an increase in the
number of its members, based on the principle of full
sovereign equality among States and the application of the
principle of equitable geographical distribution in both
categories of Council membership: permanent and non-
permanent. The reform of the Council should, first and
foremost, respond to the needs of the developing countries,
which constitute the majority of the United Nations
membership, and to the need to avoid selectivity.
Despite the efforts of African countries and their
Organization, conflict is on the rise and economic
conditions are further deteriorating on that continent.
Whatever development or increase in income they achieve
goes to servicing debts that weigh heavily on them all. In
his report on the situation in Africa, the Secretary-General
explains that this situation is the result of the policies
adopted by the colonial Powers at the 1885 Congress of
Berlin to partition the continent. These policies remain the
root cause of conflict in Africa. The report further indicates
that Africa?s problems, including political instability in
some parts and economic underdevelopment in most of the
continent, were caused by those who drew the political
borders of African countries. We call for the cancellation of
Africa?s debts and for the continent to be dealt with on new
and fair bases, not just as a source of raw materials and a
market for the consumption of manufactured goods.
The responsibility for all that has happened and is still
taking place on the African continent falls to those who
caused it in the first place. Therefore, it is high time for the
States that colonized Africa, exploited its resources and
enslaved its peoples to apologize to the continent and to
pay full compensation for all the losses it has incurred as
a result of colonialism.
The imposition of restrictions on international trade
and the legislation of extraterritorial laws require serious
action on our part to confront and put an end to them.
Member States are called upon to support and vote in
favour of the relevant draft resolution to be submitted to
the General Assembly at this session and not to recognize
such unilateral laws, which undermine the lofty principles
of the United Nations Charter, flagrantly violate the rules
of international law, encroach on the sovereignty of
Member States and blatantly interfere in their internal
affairs.
The question of Palestine is still awaiting a solution.
All developments, past and present, serve only to confirm
what my country has repeatedly stated: Occupation by
force and the dictation and imposition of surrender can
never lead to peace. No support for the occupation and
the settlement policy or undermining of the balance of
power will help to establish peace. The displaced
Palestinians living outside their land are far more
numerous than those who live on Palestinian territory.
What kind of peace is it that prevents a people from
returning to their territory, their homeland?
The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan since
1967, the occupation of southern Lebanon, and the way
in which the Security Council has been prevented from
implementing its resolution 425 (1978) are further proof
of the weakening of the United Nations as a result of the
intervention of the major Powers. In this respect, we
would ask: Why does the Security Council insist on the
implementation of some and not all of its resolutions? So
long as the United Nations remains paralysed by the
blatant interference of the powerful, who exploit it only
to serve their own interests and prevent it from acting
when there is a question of deterring or repulsing
aggression by their allies, this glaring injustice will
continue to push the Middle East towards the abyss.
The achievement of the universality of the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the
expansion of nuclear-weapon-free zones are facing major
obstacles. In the Arab East, the rulers of Tel Aviv still
refuse to adhere to the NPT. They refuse to place their
nuclear facilities under the control regime of the
International Atomic Energy Agency. They continue to
develop their nuclear capabilities with the financial and
technical support of the United States, the very country
that, under the pretext of saving the world from chemical
weapons, threatens to attack any Arab country, including
my own, merely for building a pharmaceutical plant. The
recent destruction of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory
under such flimsy pretexts, later proven false, is still fresh
in our minds.
18

Nobody should be deceived by the utterings of the
rulers of Tel Aviv to the effect that the Arabs and their
weapons are a source of danger. Neither Libya nor any
other Arab State constitutes a threat to the peace of the
region, let alone the whole world. These are countries that
neither produce nor export weapons. Washington has
destroyed the weapons that Iraq once had and has imposed
embargoes on other countries to prevent Iraq from
importing arms. The real danger to security in the region
and the entire world comes from the Israelis, who possess
hundreds of nuclear warheads. So long as nuclear weapons
and other weapons of mass destruction are not destroyed in
all the countries that possess them, any lesser effort will
represent a great attempt to deceive the whole world.
Since the dawn of time, humanity has been afflicted
by a phenomenon that has been exacerbated in modern
times: national and international terrorism. The annals of
history record terrorist acts, their victims and their
perpetrators. If we peruse these records, much is revealed.
They show that those self-styled fighters against terrorism
were the first to perpetrate terrorism. By posing as fighters
of terrorism, they are trying to cover the terrorist crimes
they have committed and still commit against other
countries and peoples. Their history is no more than a
series of terrorist acts against other peoples, which have
reached the stage of total annihilation of entire peoples.
These self-styled fighters of terrorism have attempted
to brand movements of liberation and the struggle for
freedom and against occupation as terrorist. They still
describe all fighters for freedom and independence as
terrorists. But they fail miserably when most fighters for the
freedom and independence of their countries eventually
triumph. Suddenly, those who fought against these freedom
fighters and backed those who enslaved them are ready to
roll out the red carpet for them, organize the greatest
receptions and award them the highest medals. This General
Assembly embraces a number of such leaders every year
and, only a few days ago, gave the fighter and leader
Nelson Mandela an outstanding reception.
Libya is proud to have been among the countries that
supported these leaders during their struggle. Libya takes
pride in their victories. Libya took that position at a time
when those who now claim to fight terrorism used to
describe those leaders as terrorists. Libya knows that the
change in these countries? attitudes following the triumph
of revolutionaries and freedom fighters neither reflects
principled morality, nor aims at atoning for past mistakes.
It is due to a desire to preserve their interests and to gain
greater political and economic advantages.
When we talk of terrorism, we should know our
subject. Our talk must be objective and we need to agree
on a single definition of terrorism. We should apply the
same criteria and the same rules and laws. We must also
implement the same measures and procedures. We cannot
condemn terrorism and fight it when it hits a certain
country, then turn a blind eye when it hits other countries
or other peoples. The occupation of Lebanon, the
surrounding of its capital and the attack on Qana were
acts of terrorism. The aggression against Libya in 1986
and earlier was terrorism. The invasion of Grenada was
terrorism. The kidnapping of a head of State is terrorism.
Maintaining military bases on other peoples? territory is
terrorism. Navies? threats and attacks against peoples and
violation of their territorial waters — this is terrorism.
Attempts on the lives of national leaders are terrorism.
The downing of a Libyan civilian airplane over Sinai was
terrorism. The downing of the Iranian airplane in the Gulf
was terrorism. Forcing the Security Council to react to a
missile that fell in the sea and preventing it from reacting
to missiles that were intentionally launched against a
pharmaceutical plant in a peaceful city, Khartoum, and
from sending a mere fact-finding mission — this is
terrorism. In this respect, we forcefully support Sudanese
demands for investigation and compensation and condemn
this terrorist aggression.
Are we supposed to condemn terrorism only when
it touches a certain country or countries? Should we turn
a blind eye and a deaf ear to what is being committed by
that country or those countries against humanity as a
whole? This, too, is terrorism. Terrorism will be
eradicated only when its causes, not just its results, are
addressed; not by committing similar terrorist acts. We
cannot fight terrorism with terrorism. As one Arab poet
says:
“Practise what you preach. Great shame on you if
you do not.”
We in Libya condemn terrorist acts, their
perpetrators, their sponsors and those who finance them.
We are ready to cooperate with all countries that truly
want to put an end to terrorism. Libya, in a letter to the
Secretary-General dated 9 January 1992 (document
A/46/840), was the first to call on the United Nations to
convene a special session of the General Assembly to be
devoted to international terrorism.
In this respect, we wish to note that some people
insist, in and out of context, on linking Islam and
Muslims to terrorism. This in itself is another kind of
19

terrorism. The very name of Islam is derived from the word
salaam, which means “peace”. A person is considered a
Muslim when others are safe from his words and his deeds.
The greeting of Muslims, when coming or going, is
assalamu alaikum, meaning “peace be upon you”, and the
answer is “and the same to you”.
It seems believable that, as has been demonstrated in
some works and studies, certain people can determine their
own identity only by identifying their enemy. Now that the
ideological enemy, embodied for several decades in the
communist ideology, has disappeared, they have chosen
Islam as their new alternative adversary. Upon the
disappearance of the international opponent, the former
Soviet Union, they chose the Muslims to be the new
enemy.
At this juncture, let us ask the following questions,
though we know in advance that they will go unanswered.
First, who recruited, transported, financed, trained and
armed those who fought in Afghanistan during the presence
of Soviet troops there? Secondly, who called these people
mujahidin when they fought against the Soviets in
Afghanistan? And who now calls them terrorists? How and
why did yesterday?s mujahid become today?s terrorist?
Thirdly, where do the leaders of the organizations which
plan and supervise the implementation of terrorist actions
in their homelands live? Sisterly Algeria is not the only
example. Fourthly, who protects these people? Who
finances them? Who arms them? Who trains them? Where?
And Why?
These and other, similar questions will not be publicly
acknowledged by the parties concerned, but that does not
mean that there is no answer. Islam is the victim. Muslims
are the targets and victims of terrorism, alongside the rest
of third world peoples. God Almighty addresses his Prophet
and Messenger in the Koran by saying:
“We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures.”
(The Holy Koran, XXI:107)
Verily spoke God. The Prophet of mercy preached the
religion of mercy, not terrorism.
My country has always sought to make the
Mediterranean a region of security, cooperation and peace.
It is a source of satisfaction that in July this year we issued
a joint statement with Italy which eliminated many aspects
of the legacy of the past and laid down a solid basis for
cooperation to serve the interests of both countries and
peoples and contribute to the strengthening of peace and
stability in that strategic part of the world. We believe
that this is a model that should be emulated in other
arrangements, including European and Mediterranean
partnerships. Among the issues on which the peoples of
the Mediterranean should cooperate and act in solidarity
is the foreign military presence in the region. We in
Libya would again like to express our concern about this
presence. We again call on foreign States to dismantle
their military bases around the Mediterranean and
withdraw their fleets from its waters. Their presence
poses a danger to the peoples of the region.
The world is still witnessing a continuation of old
disputes and conflicts such as those in Cyprus,
Afghanistan, Angola and Somalia. These conflicts have
persisted for too long, despite all the efforts made to
resolve them peacefully. The international community
should increase its efforts to settle these disputes and end
the suffering of their peoples.
The people of Iraq are suffering from international
sanctions which are unprecedented in their severity and
cruelty. These sanctions have resulted in human tragedies
which could never be accepted by principled human
beings. Other countries have exploited these sanctions in
order to achieve their own selfish political purpose of
destroying Iraq, violating its territorial integrity and
breaking up its unity. This will have disastrous
consequences sooner or later. Furthermore, it is a
violation of the Charter, the principles of international law
and all international norms.
In the Horn of Africa the situation in Somalia is still
a source of great concern. My country has consistently
made efforts to assist the competing Somali factions solve
their differences. We will continue those efforts with a
view to reaching a solution to ensure Somali national
reconciliation that is satisfactory to all Somalis. The
Jamahiriya, which has the honour of presiding over the
group of Sahel and desert countries, has submitted a
serious initiative for the settlement of the dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea. This initiative, which enjoys full
recognition, remains the best framework for the solution
of the border dispute between the two countries and the
normalization of relations between their two peoples.
I should now like to provide an account of the latest
developments in the dispute between my country and the
United States and the United Kingdom over the Lockerbie
question. In this regard, I shall deal with the latest, not
the oldest, of these developments. On 21 July the media
announced that the United States and the United Kingdom
20

were considering the possibility of accepting the two
suspects for trial in a third country, which may be the
Netherlands.
Libya contacted the President of the Security Council
and most of its members, as well as the Secretary-General,
Mr. Kofi Annan, to welcome this development in the event
that it became an official position. To prove and confirm its
seriousness, Libya suggested to them that the Secretary-
General should look into the matter once it became an
official position and contact all the parties to seek to reach
a practical and serious formula that would respond to the
interests of all the parties and could gain their approval.
Our intention was that if such a formula were submitted to
the Security Council, its approval would be assured and its
implementation would thereby be a foregone conclusion.
At the time, Libya expressed a number of fears and
concerns to which it drew attention and warned against the
Security Council approving any formula that did not
address such fears and concerns in its enthusiasm of feeling
that there was a positive development on the issue.
At that time — the last week of July — we drew
attention to the fact that Libya was concerned that the other
party might have taken its approach for certain short-term
reasons: first, to circumvent the two Judgments of the
International Court of Justice; secondly, to pre-empt the
decision taken at the Ouagadougou summit; thirdly, to
forestall a potential resolution at the Durban summit;
fourthly, to continue the sanctions imposed on Libya;
fifthly, to distance between the international community and
support for Libya by misleading it into believing that the
other party had already accepted the proposals of regional
and international organizations; and sixthly, to take the
whole question back to its starting point.
At that time, before the official position of the two
countries was made public and as a test of the seriousness
of the other party, Libya stressed the need for certain
considerations. First, we requested a guarantee that the two
suspects would not be handed over or moved to either the
United States or the United Kingdom. Secondly, we asked
for a guarantee of their legal, religious, social, personal and
health rights throughout the various phases of the trial.
Thirdly, we requested that the Libyan judicial authorities
and the defence of the two suspects should handle all
technical, legal questions relevant to the legal aspect of the
trial. We were now talking about a legal and not a political
matter. The legal and judicial authorities of the countries
concerned had done so with regard to their side of the
question.
Our intuition proved right and our suspicions were
confirmed. On Monday, 24 August 1998, the United
States and the United Kingdom addressed a joint letter to
the Secretary-General to which they attached the text of
a draft agreement between the Government of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the
United Kingdom, together with the text of a bill which
the United Kingdom intended to enact as law to enable
the Scottish Court to conduct the trial in the Netherlands.
On Tuesday, 25 August, the two countries submitted
a draft resolution to the Security Council. On Wednesday,
26 August, the draft resolution was formally submitted to
the Council. On Thursday, 27 August, as we expected, the
Security Council approved the draft resolution, motivated
by a feeling that it was a positive development, without
pausing to discover the poison that was slipped
surreptitiously into the honey.
The letter sent to the Secretary-General, together
with its detailed and complicated legal attachments, was
approved without giving even the members of the
Security Council a chance to study them. Libya then
requested the Council to postpone acting on the resolution
because it and its attachments required consideration by
the competent Libyan judicial authorities. These
documents had not at that time reached Libya and had not
even been translated into Arabic.
The adversary and the arbiter in the Council
prevented the Council from responding to Libya?s request.
During the review session last March, the same adversary
and the same arbiter prevented the Council from studying
the Judgments of the International Court of Justice,
officially referred to it by Libya, under the pretext that
these Judgments needed to be studied by legal experts in
their two countries. This stark contradiction in positions
and criteria we leave to the judgement of the Assembly,
and we have no doubt that it will reach the right
conclusions.
Security Council resolution 1192 (1998), adopted on
27 August 1998, suggests that the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya has not implemented the requirements of
Council resolutions, as in paragraph 1 it
“Demands once again that the Libyan
Government immediately comply with the above-
mentioned resolutions.”
This refers to resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992), 883
(1993). It also suggests that Libya has done nothing in
21

that connection, whereas Libya has responded fully to all of
these resolutions.
Paragraph 4 of resolution 1192 (1998) states that
“the Libyan Government shall ensure that any
evidence or witnesses in Libya are, upon the request
of the court, promptly made available at the court in
the Netherlands for the purpose of the trial”.
To ask Libya to provide evidence and witnesses
contradicts logic and law. It is not Libya that has accused
the two suspects. It is the United States and the United
Kingdom that claim to possess evidence which justifies
their suspicions. They alone have the responsibility to
provide the evidence and the witnesses for the prosecution
in order to prove their case. This demand in itself proves
that those two countries have no evidence to support the
accusation of our two citizens. On what, then, is this
suspicion based? It is a suspicion still in search of evidence
and witnesses. The best quotation we can cite in this
respect is the statement made by the freedom fighter and
leader, President Nelson Mandela, last week in Washington:
“I know of no system of jurisprudence anywhere in the
world where the accused is required to produce witnesses
for the prosecution.”
On the whole, in the text to which I have been
referring, Libya sees interference in the work and
procedures of the court, a limitation on the rights of the
accused to defend themselves, and an abrogation of Libya?s
legal rights guaranteed under international law and custom
governing procedures and the provision of proof.
Security Council resolution 1192 (1998) referred to the
joint letter dated 24 August 1998 from the Governments of
the United Kingdom and of the United States, contained in
document S/1998/795, to which is annexed the text of the
intended agreement between the Governments of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and of the United Kingdom.
In its article 16 (2), that agreement refers to the
“transfer [of] the accused from the premises of the
Scottish Court [in the Netherlands] to the territory of
the United Kingdom ...,
“(a) ... for the purpose of trial by jury in
Scotland”. (S/1998/795, annex II)
However, the initiative adopted by the Security Council,
which in essence is a political initiative, is based on what
was adopted by the regional and international organizations
whose letters were cited in the preambular part of
Security Council resolution 1192 (1998). Here we would
like to refer in particular to the content of the joint letter
from the Secretaries-General of the League of Arab States
and of the Organization of African Unity, annexed to
document S/1997/497. Any text that would make it
possible to transfer the two suspects to any place other
than the Netherlands, under any circumstances, runs
counter to the regional initiatives accepted by the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. That is only some of the poison in the
honey: the world has heard that the United Kingdom and
the United States have agreed to have a trial in the
Netherlands. Now they talk about Scotland, the United
Kingdom and the United States. We shall clarify this
presently.
The letter then states, in paragraph 4, that, “If found
guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the
United Kingdom”. Moreover, the intended agreement
states in article 16 (2) (b) that the accused would be
transferred to the United Kingdom “for the purpose of
serving a custodial sentence imposed by the Scottish
Court following the conviction of the accused”.
That contradicts the initiative; I cannot believe that
anyone understood the initiative to mean anything other
than that the trial would take place in a third country.
This provision runs counter to the general understanding
of the initiative, that the purpose of the trial of the two
suspects is to reveal the truth in the tragic incident of Pan
Am flight 103, and not to exact revenge on two Libyan
citizens who are merely suspected, without evidence. It is
the understanding also that the ultimate venue of all the
trial procedures would be in a third country: in the
Netherlands, and not anywhere else. The agreement by
the various parties to the holding of the trial in the
Netherlands is a political solution that came about as a
result of political action. The place where the sentence
should be served, if, God forbid, they are convicted,
should be the same place as the trial. This is part of the
political solution.
They claim that Scottish law stipulates that sentences
should be served in Scotland, because Scottish courts sit
in Scotland. But this court will sit outside Scotland, so
any sentence should also be carried out outside Scotland.
The court is, exceptionally, sitting in another country, so
the sentence must be served in the country where the trial
takes place, not in Scotland.
Paragraph 8 of Security Council resolution 1192
(1998) reads in part that the Council
22

“decides that the aforementioned measures shall be
suspended immediately if the Secretary-General
reports to the Council that the two accused have
arrived in the Netherlands for the purpose of trial
before the court described in paragraph 2 or” — and
here pay attention to this new poison in the honey —
“have appeared for trial before an appropriate court in
the United Kingdom or the United States”.
In a dispute that has lasted for more than seven years, this
is the first time that the Security Council has adopted a
resolution asserting that the trial can take place before a
court in the United Kingdom or the United States. I have
addressed a letter to the Secretary-General indicating that
the proposal of the League of Arab States and the
Organization of African Unity regarding a trial under
Scottish law, before a Scottish court, at the International
Court of Justice in The Hague defines an “appropriate
court”. But the resolution says
(spoke in English)
“an appropriate court in the United Kingdom or the United
States”, not an appropriate British or United States court.
(spoke in Arabic)
For the first time, the resolution refers to such a venue.
There is no need for the addition of a reference to an
“appropriate court in the United Kingdom or the United
States” — unless the purpose is to transfer the two suspects
to the Netherlands as a transit station before transferring
them to one of the two countries mentioned in that
paragraph. If that is the case, it can be qualified only as
institutional piracy condoned by Security Council
resolution. The world is unaware of this situation. I know
that members are busy with their own concerns, but I
remind them that I am citing the text of the new Security
Council resolution.
Along with the rest of the international community, we
have agreed to a trial before a Scottish court sitting in a
third country, which could be the Netherlands. We have
agreed to a Scottish court, to Scottish law and to Scottish
judges, in the Netherlands. Those are the terms described
in the decisions of the regional organizations. But what
does that paragraph mean?
But Libya never subscribed to these new terms, and
the regional organizations never agreed that a trial should
take place in the United States or in the United Kingdom.
To suggest that this is the “appropriate court” referred to in
paragraph 16 of resolution 883 (1993) is to attempt to
deceive the international community, and is yet another
example of the poison in the honey. The Council was
misled into accepting this because of the existence of a
feeling that there was a change in the position of the two
countries.
Another meaningless reference came in paragraph 8
on the relations between the Libyan Government and the
French judicial authorities, relevant to the explosion of
Union de Transports Aériens flight 772. This question has
nothing to do with the subject of the initiative upon which
resolution 1192 (1998) is based. Moreover, it is well
established in the Security Council that Libya has done all
that has been required of it by the French judge in this
respect and that the French authorities have expressed
their total satisfaction, and this was endorsed by the
Security Council.
Libya believes that the optimal, pragmatic and
prompt solution lies in conducting negotiations among all
parties with a view to reaching an agreement on the
practical procedures for the application of the option of
trying the two suspects before a Scottish court in a neutral
country — the Netherlands — as called for by the summit
of the Non-Aligned Movement held in South Africa at the
beginning of September 1998.
Should direct negotiations prove impossible due to
the opposition of the United States and the United
Kingdom, these negotiations can be conducted through the
Secretary-General. The proposed agreement should
determine all practical measures, the commitments of
each party and the rights and guarantees to be accorded
the two suspects and their defence team. It should also
precisely state what all the parties are required to do so
that the trial of the two suspects will be the final phase of
the implementation of Security Council resolutions, not
the first phase. This should lead to the lifting of the
sanctions imposed on Libya and put an end to any
attempts to change positions or otherwise circumvent the
situation under the pretext that Libya has not fully
complied with Security Council resolutions — because
Libya has fully done what it has been required to do.
Even the exchange of goods is governed by
agreements and contracts that regulate and explain the
responsibilities of various parties, suppliers and exporters.
Goods are insured and reinsured against all risks. These
are people, human beings we are talking about here. They
are not going to the Netherlands for tourism; we?re not
going to bid them farewell, have a nice trip. Having said
23

that, we wonder what is meant by electing to hold the trial
in a military base used by the Americans in the
Netherlands? Is the base that the Americans use as
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization the only
place in the Netherlands where the trial can take place?
What is this?
Following are some of the questions that the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya deems it necessary to resolve and reach an
agreement on. First, there is a need to agree on listing,
clarifying and determining, in advance, the witnesses
needed — not only from Libya, but from all parties. The
defence team should have the right to receive and peruse all
evidence and cross-examine all witnesses. Secondly, there
needs to be agreement on the place where the suspects
would spend the time of their sentence in case of
conviction, either in the Netherlands or in Libya. Thirdly,
we need guarantees that the two suspects will not be
extradited or transferred to either the United States or the
United Kingdom for any reason whatsoever at any phase of
the trial. Fourthly, there needs to be an agreement on the
security, legal, personal, social, health and religious rights
of the two suspects during the various phases of the trial.
We need to conclude an agreement between the
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya specifying how the two suspects will be
transferred to the Netherlands and guaranteeing their
security and safety, during their transfer, stay and their
return at the end of the trial. Such an agreement should be
endorsed by the Security Council and implemented under
the supervision of the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya has accepted a trial of the two suspects
before a Scottish court in accordance with Scottish law,
presided over by Scottish judges, that would sit in the
Netherlands, but we will not accept the setting of any
conditions in relation to the implementation of that
proposal. Libya is ready to take this exceptional road in
order to reach a solution to the dispute that would satisfy
the interests of all parties and in order to settle the
outstanding legal issues through direct negotiations or
through the Secretary-General.
Libya has not interfered in the agreements concluded
by the other parties for the purposes of the trial. Also, it
has not authorized anyone to decide on her behalf matters
relating to her citizens, because this is its constitutional
right and duty. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands
can conclude an agreement; this has to do with the
Netherlands court and because the Netherlands is the seat
of the court, but as far as the Libyan citizens are
concerned, we never authorized anyone to conclude any
agreements on our behalf. We are responsible for our
citizens, the suspects included. They have a team of
lawyers to defend them. We do not interfere in other
States? affairs, nor do we want anyone to interfere with
our affairs either.
We would like to confirm our seriousness, our desire
and our willingness to close the file of this case and other
files as well, and open a new chapter in our relations with
the countries concerned based on mutual respect and non-
interference in internal affairs.


Mr. President, your election
to preside over the fifty-third session of the United
Nations General Assembly is especially gratifying for us
Brazilians. Brazil and Uruguay came into being as sister
nations, and our bonds are becoming ever stronger. With
each passing day, our destinies are more and more linked
together. The opportunity I have of working closely with
my friend, Didier Opertti, allows me to say with
conviction that at this session the Assembly will have a
formidable President. In the exercise of this important
task, you will benefit from the example set by your
predecessor. At the helm of the fifty-second session,
Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko was able to guide and motivate
delegations and to provide valuable impulse to the
proposals for reform put forward by the Secretary-
General.
Because of his dedication to the task of modernizing
our Organization and, above all, because of his decisive
role in situations that pose a real threat to international
peace and security, the Secretary-General deserves our
applause. The diplomatic talent and serene daring revealed
by Mr. Kofi Annan confirm that we have in him a leader
who is up to the challenges and opportunities before us.
It was an honour for us to have welcomed him in Brazil
this past July.
The defining trait of this particular moment is the
troubling instability that besets global financial markets.
Since the last quarter of 1997, when we first felt the
shock waves of what was then called the “Asian crisis”,
the world economy has been suffering the effects of a
phenomenon whose reach, depth and permanence are still
not clear. But the international community cannot wait,
with arms crossed, for the course of events to shed light
on our quandary.
It is both legitimate and necessary that Governments
act to try to prevent problems that may arise. In an era
marked by the rapid integration of national economies,
such action by Governments will increasingly have to be
made through coordination in the international sphere.
Although there is still no consensus as to the
dimension of the crisis we face, nor on the prognosis for
its duration, there seems to be a growing convergence of
points of view regarding the impact of the high volatility
of capital movements. The events of the past few months
5

have revealed a serious lag between growing financial
interdependence and the modest effectiveness of existing
international mechanisms for dialogue and coordination.
Since the beginning of his Administration, President
Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil has been calling the
attention of other world leaders to the task of making the
global financial system more stable and predictable. In
repeated messages to G-7 members, beginning in 1995, he
offered concrete proposals: to increase cooperation among
monetary authorities; to expand coordination of
macroeconomic policies among countries that can have
considerable impact on world finance; to upgrade
international monitoring capacity over domestic
macroeconomic policy; and to expand mechanisms aimed
at stabilizing currencies under speculative attack. There
have been, of course, considerable advances along some of
these lines, but the measures adopted still fall far short of
what is needed. Until now, political will has not
corresponded to the magnitude and gravity of the situation.
The crisis will not resolve itself. We must join together to
face it.
In this, as in other fields of international life, we must
avoid at all costs an attitude that, back in the seventies,
Brazilian Foreign Minister Azeredo da Silveira described as
“the postponement syndrome”.
Experience teaches us that inaction can have a high
cost. It also teaches that answers given by various countries
to crisis situations, if guided by irrational or spur-of-the-
moment reactions, can turn these situations into even
greater problems, prolonging their effects over time and
aggravating people’s suffering.
One can imagine extreme scenarios of a return to
closed economic models, to the search for elusive self-
sufficiency and isolation, to notions of national security
based on distrust of others and on the insecurity of others.
Such scenarios must not become reality. We cannot allow
it.
Progress in international relations depends
fundamentally on the perception of the international arena
not as a source of potential threat, but as an environment in
which risks can be reduced and difficulties overcome by a
pooling of wills and resources.
Ours is not a world in which nations should be left to
their own devices. The cost of such a course is invariably
higher than the energy or resources saved by attempts to
distance oneself from the problems of others. The
willingness to deal collectively with problems will
motivate individual countries to believe in the benefit of
seeking international consideration of matters in their
direct interest. The world cannot depend only on the
willingness, capacity and interest of a select number of
countries to mobilize and lead international efforts in this
or that direction.
We can no longer accept situations, such as the
present financial crisis, in which, despite the undeniably
international nature of the phenomenon, Governments and
societies simply do not fully trust any of the existing
organizations or mechanisms as a source of support,
guidance or even interpretation of the problem at hand.
We must give serious consideration to the fact that
growing interdependence renders indispensable effective
governance at the international level.
We have before us an essentially political challenge.
This does not mean simply modernizing decision-making
procedures or administrative structures, but also giving to
multilateral treatment of issues the priority it so often
receives in our speeches and statements.
A large gap still remains between the recognition
that the central problems facing humanity must be dealt
with at the international level and the resistance of
Governments and societies to act in accordance with that
recognition. This is most evident in the allocation of
resources and in the adoption of policies capable of
generating external repercussions.
In that same vein, if the link between the national
and the international is ever greater, peace and
development are also increasingly related. A world racked
by economic instability or despair cannot be a safe
environment, free of the threat of war, conflict and
violence. But the reverse is also true: material and social
progress presupposes minimal conditions of security and
peaceful coexistence among and within countries. We
must advance on both fronts by working to establish a
climate of confidence in the political-strategic realm and
in the essential context of the global economy.
Brazil’s relative weight and the history of our
international behaviour are some of our country’s most
important credentials. These credentials are strengthened
today by the maturity of our democracy and by the
vigorous modernization of the Brazilian economy.
Under the leadership of President Cardoso, we have
renewed our permanent willingness to play a more active
6

role in building a world order conducive to peace and
development. This spirit guides Brazil’s international action,
particularly within the United Nations.
I wish to point out that, in the Security Council and
other United Nations bodies, our delegation, led by
Ambassador Celso Amorim, has faithfully reflected this
central guideline of Brazilian foreign policy.
In 1998, we have completed our participation in the
international non-proliferation regime. We have ratified the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and
acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), which was approved by Brazil’s National
Congress this past July. Three days ago in Washington, I
had the satisfaction of personally depositing the instrument
of accession to the NPT, in tandem with our Ambassadors
in London and Moscow.
These decisions lend formal and symbolic support to
the commitment to use nuclear energy for exclusively
peaceful purposes. This commitment is enshrined in the
Brazilian Constitution and is strengthened by the bilateral
and regional pacts we have signed. The existing agreements
and the cooperation between Brazil and Argentina, as well
as the Treaty of Tlatelolco, are exemplary achievements in
this field.
Brazil thus feels particularly motivated to call upon
nuclear-armed States, and upon those with the capability of
producing such weapons, to take decisive steps towards
disarmament. We also expect that Governments which have
still not become party to the NPT, the CTBT and other
relevant instruments and mechanisms will do so at an early
date.
As an expression of the determination which motivates
us to work for this cause, Brazil, together with seven other
friendly countries, signed the “Declaration on a Nuclear
Weapon Free World: the Need for a New Agenda” on 9
June of this year. During the current session of the General
Assembly, together with our partners in the Declaration, we
intend to present a draft resolution aimed at boosting and
guiding efforts towards the complete and definitive
elimination of nuclear weapons.
There is no longer room or justification for postponing
action in the nuclear field or in the broader fight to
eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. The cost of a
failure to do so could be truly catastrophic, and the risks
are evident to all.
The Brazilian Government, as the coordinator of the
guarantor countries of the Rio de Janeiro Protocol, has
been making a sustained effort to assist Ecuador and Peru
in reaching at the earliest possible date a solid and final
agreement on the border differences that have kept them
apart for decades. Our diplomatic services — together
with those of Argentina, Chile and the United States —
stand ready to continue making the best possible
contribution.
Recent developments confirm the prognosis that the
peace process is on its way to a conclusion and reflect the
political will and the high level of engagement with
which Ecuador and Peru have been working towards that
end.
The fact that South America is a region in which
countries essentially live in a harmonious, peaceful and
increasingly integrated manner is for Brazil a vital and
defining trait that our peoples are determined to preserve.
The same applies to the permanence of democratic
regimes as a common thread of the nations in our
continent. It is a higher value to which we are collectively
committed in the Southern Cone Common Market
(MERCOSUR), the Rio Group and the Organization of
American States (OAS).
The advent and consolidation of democracy was the
determining factor in the extraordinary work of
integration in which South American nations are engaged.
This is an accomplishment of our societies that the
Governments of the region must always be prepared to
defend as one. This is a basic tenet of Brazilian foreign
policy.
Brazil attaches the utmost importance to the
advancement of human rights. As we celebrate the fiftieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, we should recognize the persistent gap between
principles and generally accepted rules of international
law, on the one hand, and the prevalent realities of the
world, on the other.
The Brazilian Government is engaged in the fight to
overcome the distance between norms and facts in our
country. We are prepared to draw from the international
environment elements that may help us realize an
aspiration shared by all Brazilians. This was the main
thrust of President Cardoso’s submission to the National
Congress of the decision to recognize the mandatory
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
7

President Cardoso is also committed to the fight
against the drug trade. His presence at the special session
of the General Assembly this past June was clear proof of
this commitment.
Our participation in the effort to build a lasting peace
extends beyond the Americas. The Brazilian military and
police have taken part in United Nations forces in many
parts of the world, particularly in Portuguese-speaking
countries in Africa, to which we are bound by history and
culture.
Brazil has followed developments in Angola with
concern. The United Nations must firmly insist that UNITA
fulfil the commitments undertaken in the Lusaka Protocol.
An unravelling of the situation could jeopardize the
progress achieved in the peace process and would be tragic
indeed. Angolans have been subjected to untold suffering
for decades. The international community must do
everything within its reach so that Angola may finally
dedicate itself to reconstruction and development.
The Brazilian Government, along with the other
members of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking
Countries, is engaged in seeking a peaceful solution to the
grave internal crisis faced by Guinea-Bissau. The
Community, in close coordination with countries in the
region, has contributed to spurring significant progress. We
will continue to pursue favourable conditions for the urgent
and complete normalization of life in that sister nation.
As for East Timor — to which we are also bound by
history and a common language — Brazil welcomes the
new spirit that presides over this delicate and complex
issue, especially in the context of the tripartite negotiations
between the Portuguese and Indonesian Governments, under
the auspices of the Secretary-General.
The Brazilian Government has maintained a positive
dialogue with the parties involved and is determined to
assist, to the limit of its possibilities, in finding an adequate
equation for all concerned, with progressive participation by
the Timorese themselves.
Since the advent of economic stability in 1994, Brazil
has shown renewed dynamism with the strengthening of our
domestic market and the outlook for development with
social justice.
But present-day Brazil does not see its development as
isolated or self-contained. We realize that the destiny of our
economy is increasingly linked to that of the economies of
our neighbours and partners, in the framework of an
integration process that has decidedly contributed to
progress in the region and to the well-being of our
societies, particularly within MERCOSUR.
The fruits of this process serve not only the goal of
economic development but also, and most importantly, the
cause of social justice, which remains the foremost task
of our region.
We welcome the results of the most recent edition of
the United Nations Human Development Report. The
numbers show that, in spite of all that remains to be done,
our country has made extraordinary social progress over
the past two decades in the areas of health, education, the
fight against poverty and the reduction of disparities
among the various regions of the country. Even though
we still face daunting challenges, Brazilians are leading
a better life, as our presence among those nations of
greater human development indicates.
Consistent with its domestic policies and its regional
role, Brazil will continue to fight for a more balanced
allocation of the benefits of economic interdependence,
without distortions such as those resulting from
protectionist policies of developed countries.
Such policies affect in a particularly cruel manner
the developing countries and serve to reinforce the
arguments of those who preach domestically a return to
closed economic models. In the current context of global
economic turbulence, we must demand that the developed
countries establish greater coherence between free-trade
rhetoric and their unfair trade practices.
President Cardoso has stated that we must abandon
the path of globalization with exclusion — in the
decision-making process as well as in the distribution of
benefits — and seek globalization with solidarity in both
of those dimensions.
Reforming and strengthening the United Nations is
an essential part of building a world of greater solidarity.
The Brazilian Government recognizes the significant
progress that has already been made in terms of structural
and functional modernization of the Organization. We
agree with the Secretary-General when he says that
reform must not be seen as an event, but as a process; but
we cannot but stress that an important part of that process
has yet to be undertaken.
8

For Brazil, reforming the United Nations necessarily
implies updating the functioning and composition of the
Security Council, which still mirrors a period of history that
is now long gone. That does not mean — and I have stated
this before in this forum — that the particular interests of
this or that country should be taken into account. What it
does mean is that fundamental deficiencies in terms of
legitimacy, representativeness and effectiveness must be
redressed. We will continue to defend expansion in both
categories of members, with the presence, in both, of
developing countries.
It is inconceivable that, on the eve of the new
millennium, reform of the Organization could exclude the
restructuring of the Security Council.
The basis of global solidarity is the establishment of
trust between societies. There is no other way if we are to
establish a peaceful, stable and constructive international
environment. Our so-called global village is still far from
becoming a truly integrated community, in which people
can consider themselves as participants in the same
historical process.
Of the many merits of international organizations, one
of the most important is that they offer a framework of
interaction that favours the development of a true sense of
universal communion. In dealing with common problems,
Governments learn in practice just how much they need to
work more and more closely together. In international
forums, we are constantly weaving a web of relations based
on a stronger identity and trust between our nations and
their leaders. Countries must trust one another, but they
must also have a reason to trust in the legitimacy and
efficiency of multilateral organizations and procedures in
order to tackle their most important problems.
The dynamics of international life demand a constant
updating of the instruments at the disposal of the
community of nations to allow it to act collectively in the
face of its greatest challenges.
We must have the courage to recognize that never
before have the risks and the cost of procrastination been so
high. We must, above all, have the will to make the
decisions that can ultimately restore our faith in ourselves,
in our capacity to state that history does goes on, and that
we are pointing it in the direction of a more just and better
world.