In our
times, a unique advance has been made in the search for peace, understanding
and cooperation among peoples. Mankind is progressively becoming more and
more aware of this new reality.
Accordingly, the present juncture is an appropriate one for reflection
and dialogue within the framework of the United Nations, for a review of our
achievements as well as of our shortcomings, and for a serious, in-depth study
of the role we assign to the Organization and the hopes we seek to fulfil,
hopefully in the near future.
I wish to reiterate here the conviction of President Aylwin's Government
regarding the moral, political and social imperative of placing the needs of
people at the heart of United Nations activities. Reducing poverty.
increasing employment and promoting social cohesion are needs shared by the
entire international community.
For these reasons, the importance of this forty-seventh session of the
General Assembly is inarguable.
We welcome the new Member States that have joined the United Nations and
that will take part with us in its endeavours.
We welcome your election, Mr. President, since it will permit an
experienced figure in world politics to guide our deliberations and lead them
to an outcome which is satisfactory to all. At the same time we appreciate
the judicious administration of your illustrious predecessor,
Ambassador Shihabi.*
The world is on the threshold of the twenty-first century. We have left
behind us the senseless ideological confrontations between the super-Powers
and the danger of nuclear holocaust.
But there is no guarantee of peace. There are still old tensions and new
ones the result of racism, religious fanaticism and extreme nationalism; there
remains the historic challenge of development for all; and there is still a
terrible social debt which cannot be rescheduled to the most
disenfranchised members of all our societies.
Our Organization is still faced with many challenges calling for more
effective action. The war in Bosnia and the grave reports of massive
violations of human rights, reaching the point of genocide, in the territories
devastated by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia demand concerted and
vigorous action.
The auspicious but still uncertain process launched in South Africa poses
new challenges for our Organization.
The ongoing negotiations on the Middle East augur well for the future,
but other situations in the world still pose a threat to peace.
Social confrontation, the outcome of the growing gap between well-being
and poverty, has become a source of global instability. Today more than ever,
development with equity is the new requirement for peace, a common task we are
called upon to join together and undertake.
Now that the cold war is over, the role of the United Nations has taken
on more relevance than ever before. The Organization has a central role to
play in building a new international order which will make it possible to face
the crises that constitute serious threats to peace in many parts of the world.
These crises, and a whole series of economic, social and environmental
challenges, can be overcome only if the Organization is strengthened, commands
more respect and becomes more efficient in the pursuit of its lofty goals.
Of course, it is essential that this enormous task we are calling on the
world Organization to perform be complemented by the preventive activities
carried out by regional organizations. Our own regional organization, the
Organization of American States, is carrying out that mission by engaging in a
realistic and tenacious effort to forestall or resolve the region's varied and
difficult problems.
But it is in the United Nations that we must develop the concepts,
principles and agreements which will make the security of individuals a
priority objective of international cooperation. This, in turn, will enhance
coexistence among States.
We must search together for new political directions that allow us to
strengthen the role of the Organization in the maintenance of peace and
security, in the defence of human rights, in the protection of the
environment, in the struggle against drug trafficking and terrorism and in
closing the gap between North and South.
The starting-point must be the values that inspire our action. Chile
proclaims before this worldwide forum its unswerving dedication to peace and
respect for the dignity of the individual, its conviction that justice is the
foundation of any truly stable society, its belief in the universal value of
human rights, its respect for individual creativity and democracy as an ideal
form of government its commitment, in short, to the needs of the most humble
in all our societies and its recognition of the validity of law and of the
search for consensus as a foundation for major national and international
agreements.
Chile firmly believes in the Charter of the United Nations. There is no
substitute for this Organization as a world parliament, as a forum for
international debates and agreements, as a source of innovative technical
analysis and as a multilateral body responsible for peace, security and
development.
Just as we back the role of the United Nations without reservation, we
likewise set no limits on our demand that it should be efficient and
democratic in the attainment of its objectives. Certainly, that depends on
the will of Governments, as well as on the strengthening of the competence and
autonomy of the Secretariat.
Above all, a balance needs to be struck between the General Assembly as
the principal political organ, the Security Council as the organ responsible
for dealing with the traditional problems of peace and security, and the
Economic and Social Council as the primary body for promoting sustainable and
equitable development.
Mutually respectful interaction among these three levels should permit
the United Nations to take the lead in creating an international order of
peace in which the interests and problems of all countries are adequately
represented.
In this new world order which is taking shape and which all members of
the Organization must contribute to designing, a vitally important place is
occupied by the Secretary-General's report, entitled "An Agenda for Peace"
(A/47/277), which contains ideas and suggestions regarding preventive
diplomacy and peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building.
Chile agrees that the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of
international peace and security should be strengthened.
While preventive diplomacy is playing an increasingly significant role on
the international scene, the concept of peace-building, in the sense of
creating a new climate and strengthening security through economic, social and
cultural development, is a fundamental issue.
Our country is collaborating with the United Nations and is prepared to
increase its participation in the future, should that prove necessary.
Chile's readiness in this regard has been expressed in its support for the
Security Council in the decisions that have been adopted. Likewise, it has in
recent years placed at the service of the United Nations the knowledge and
professional experience of its armed forces and forces of public order.
Chilean soldiers have traditionally been among the members of the United
Nations observer forces in the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent. Our
marines are initiating their activities in Cambodia, our pilots have been
active in Kuwait, and our police are collaborating with the peace force in El
Salvador.
In this spirit of service to the cause of peace, Chile is a constant
participant in the debates in multilateral forums on disarmament on a global
scale, without prejudice to our active involvement on the regional level.
We support the Convention on chemical weapons and reiterate our
legitimate desire to become a full member of the Conference on Disarmament
once the issue of its enlargement becomes the subject of real discussion.
In the regional sphere, we see as important the initiative we have taken,
together with Argentina and Brazil, that is designed to give full effect to
the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the
Caribbean through a set of amendments intended to strengthen its monitoring
system and which the conference of signatories has approved by acclamation.
In the context of the positive spirit that has succeeded the cold-war
period and is characterized by the search for agreements and a climate of
friendship and collaboration between the Powers, my country considers that the
time has come to undertake, on a carefully thought-out time scale, the total
elimination of nuclear weapons, and to put a definitive end right now to the
testing of such weapons.
I join my voice with those of the Ministers of the Nordic Group who,
meeting at Svalbard, welcome the efforts being made, particularly the halting
of the French tests in the Pacific, and expressed their wish that the
voluntary moratorium on all nuclear explosions should become a permanent one,
removing from the world once and for all these practices which threaten our
security, coexistence and environment.
In the years to come, we shall have to take up the issue of the
composition of the Security Council. We believe that this important body
should reflect new international realities, and we are accordingly ready to
consider with interest and sympathy new formulas that would appropriately
reflect the aspirations of new world Powers which are seeking to become
regular members of the Council.
It is also essential to strengthen the presence in that body of the
various developing regions. Inevitably, this will entail greater
participation numerically, as well as new forms of regional representation.
With improvements over time, this practice could become a mechanism for
representation of the regional groups which would combine freedom of action
for the country elected with the expression of the will of the countries of
its region. This system, if effectively operated, could ensure that all
Members of the Organization feel that they are participating to the proper
extent in the decisions of the Security Council.
Chile is also interested in strengthening the Economic and Social
Council. According to the Charter of the United Nations, this is the
principal specialized body of the system for analysing in an integrated way
the political, technical and operational dimensions of current economic and
social problems. The Council should be strengthened and renewed in order to
become a true council for development, capable of guiding high-level dialogue,
formulating development policies and providing proper guidance for the
operational activities of the system.
We shall be participating actively in discussions under way on these
issues on the basis of the interesting proposals submitted by the Nordic
countries and the Group of 77, and of the resolutions of the most recent
session of the Council.
A factor that will contribute to the reform of the" Economic and Social
Council will be the establishment, under it, of the commission for sustainable
development, which is called upon to become the body for monitoring
environment. problems. The link between the commission on sustainable
development and the world environment fund is also the key to the success of
Agenda 21, the ambitious programme of action approved by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development.
The practical results of the Conference, which were characterized by the
great effort made to reach agreement, are being carefully watched by the
public at large, which is participating in ever-greater numbers in this
process.
The signing of the Conventions on biological diversity and climate
change, the convening of the world conferences on desertification a subject
of great interest to many countries, but of vital importance to the African
nations and the conference on fishing on the high seas are milestones in the
international effort to preserve the environment.
We cannot enter a new era of world peace although it is potentially
within our grasp if we forget the human being. In the final analysis, our
capacity to lead and the raison d'√™tre of the United Nations will be measured
by the success we achieve in the field of social development.
Without greater well-being for all our citizens, there will be no peace,
security or lasting stability at either the national or the international
level. That is why we put forward the initiative for a world summit for
social development. This proposal was recently endorsed unanimously in the
Economic and Social Council, which approved a positive recommendation to the
General Assembly that it convene the summit at the beginning of 1995 at the
level of Heads of State and Heads of Government.
I should like to take this occasion to thank all the Member States which
participated in that consensus, and in particular the 121 countries that
sponsored the relevant resolution. I should also like to thank the
Secretary-General for having assigned to our representative to the United
Nations, Ambassador Juan Somavia, the task of bringing to a successful
conclusion the consultations required to put this initiative into effect.
The first step has now been taken. Much remains to be done. There is no
doubt that the primary responsibility for resolving this situation is borne at
the domestic level. Each country must take steps to stabilize the functioning
of its political system, encourage investment, trade and technological
development and ensure equitable distribution of income.
Chile has accepted that challenge. It is growing today at an annual rate
of 7 per cent and has reduced unemployment to about 5 per cent and inflation
to 13 per cent a year. In addition, under President Aylwin's Government, the
process of solving the problem of external debt has been concluded, the real
income of salaried workers has increased by 15 per cent and policies designed
to alleviate the poverty of the most disenfranchised sectors of the population
have been implemented. This has been done on the basis of an open economy
which has concentrated on both economic and social efficiency against a
background of personal freedom and political democracy.
Although the success of these programmes has been recognized by the
various sectors in our national life, we are aware that much more still needs
to be done with our resources. But we are equally aware that the benefits for
our country would be significantly greater if the ground rules of the
international economy were more equitable.
Even while most of the world is calling, with growing clarity and force,
for the abolition of protectionism and the formulation of stable and
non-discriminatory rules to govern international trade, unilateral measures
are reversing this world-wide trend and giving rise to direct forms of
protectionism in the main world markets, in a departure from the principles
and regulatory framework established under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade.
I now wish to say a few words on the Secretariat.
First, we welcome the election of the distinguished scholar, diplomat and
politician Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali as Secretary-General. The Members of the
United Nations are witnesses to Chile's consistent support for the African
continent's aspiration to see one of its own in that high post. We have
already expressed our opinion publicly at the bilateral level, within the
Non-Aligned Movement and in the General Assembly last year. We already have
evidence of the Secretary-General's character and decision-making ability. We
support him in his task.
The Secretariat is of course a vital organ under the Charter and in the
United Nations system. In order to meet the challenges that lie ahead, it
must act with the maximum efficiency and autonomy.
The Secretariat is at the service of all countries, and accordingly all
of them must be properly represented at its various levels. The efficiency of
the Organization depends to a large extent on the confidence Governments have
in the technical ability, experience and impartiality of its staff.
At a time when we are asking the Organization to perform all the tasks
that arise in this era, its constant financial insecurity is absurd. It is
essential to enhance the fluidity and automaticity of countries' payment of
their assessments. This is doubtless a responsibility that is shared by all,
but to the greatest extent by the main contributors. We cannot have a strong
Organization with a weak financial base.
The specialized agencies and regional commissions are called upon to
continue playing a vital role in such fields as cooperation for development,
protection of the environment and economic and social analysis. The
contributions they have made, to the benefit above all of the developing
world, must be assessed at their true value.*
The support of the United Nations for the second Space Conference of the
Americas, to be held shortly in Santiago, is another example that regional and
global efforts are complementary.
Chile has long had the privilege of being the site of important regional
offices of the world Organization. Their presence in our country is proof of
Chile's commitment to the activities of the United Nations, which we shall
always be prepared to support.
The subject of the United Nations, which is certainly what has brought us
together, is an exciting one for the international community. Indeed,
fulfilment of the purposes and principles of its Charter has been a constant
concern of our country. Likewise, failure to respect them arouses a sense of
frustration.
The duties and rights of each Member State vis-a-vis the Organization can
in no way be reduced to a matter of legalities or to simple mechanical
action. We recognize a real commitment to the United Nations system, and
consequently we discharge each of our duties responsibly.
The nations assembled here and indeed the world have before them the best
possible opportunity of firmly guaranteeing the future of coming generations,
a substantial improvement in the quality of life, the elimination of the
development gap and the attainment of peace in short, the opportunity of
building a better world for all and with all. Let us all take up that
challenge.


We
should first like to congratulate Mr. Ganev on his election to the presidency
of the General Assembly at this session.
Barely a year ago, the representatives of the United Nations, meeting in
this same Hall, ventured to believe that a new era of peace, cooperation and
understanding was being established. We glimpsed on the horizon a new order
in which each would be recognized, in which all nations, large and small,
would have equal responsibilities and obligations in mutual respect.
We believed that. We really believed that, because the mood was one of
optimism. After all, the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait had marked
the triumph of legitimacy. Then, bloc confrontation being over, it was time
for dialogue, since ideological antagonism had been overcome.
Today, the world is again experiencing upheavals and disruption. We are
seeing States imploding. Peoples are plagued by hunger, destitution and
poverty. We are powerless witnesses to this grim spectacle, whereas we should
be the artisans of change.
Who can deny the seriousness of all this? Noble ideas, lofty sentiments
and good intentions are not enough for the well-being of humankind. Perhaps I
should add: "are no longer enough".
This is an obvious fact and should provide a basic tenet for our work.
We must all show our interest in it, so that our destiny might express our
determination. The world is changing, and in order to control these changes,
we are building the new order. This is a voluntary endeavour, based on the
respect of nations, on partnership, on interdependence. But who would deny

that the new world order has something of a colossus with feet of clay? On
what kind of world will this system be modelled?
More than 4 billion human beings live in poor countries. Whereas the
rich nations, with about 15 per cent of the world's population, control more
than 80 per cent of the world's income, about 60 per cent of humankind live in
low-income countries, and more than 3 billion people possess only 5 per cent
of the total income. With a population of more than 450 million, sub-Saharan
Africa has less than 1 per cent of the world's income.
Can we accept the exclusion of these millions of human beings? It is as
if history had speeded up, had shaken up our ways of thinking, leaving our
minds all confused. It is as if fragility had become the watchword of human
adventure.
No! At a time when we are all committed to building this new world
order, stronger solidarity is needed more than ever, because poverty is not
inevitable, nor is it a genetic defect.
The challenge is daunting. Short-term, stopgap solutions are not
enough. We simply must radically change the attitude and behaviour of the
industrialized world to the chronic plight of many countries in the South. In
order to do this, there can be no double standards, tacit tolerance for some
and vague promises for others. Have we the right today to denounce the
corruption, abuse and lapses that are widespread in many developing countries,
considering that these same practices were not so long ago tolerated and even
encouraged by some? Can we welcome the changes that have occurred and I am
referring to the democratization of institutions even though in many cases
they are accompanied by chaos and suffering?
Nevertheless, we must not underestimate the contribution that the
international community is entitled to expect from each country, considered as

it is to be an artisan of its own development. Each must, in particular,
establish institutions and procedures compatible with the rights and
obligations that all must now shoulder, regardless of level of development.
But what are we to think, what are we to say about the increasing
tensions between the industrialized North, certain that it is in the right,
and the South, which gets poorer all the time, plagued by contradiction and
seeking, sometimes clumsily, fresh sources of relief?
How sincere is the wealth of advice given in the options suggested, the
guidelines prescribed? Are we not in a diktat situation when we hear the
following: "Adopt reforms, democratize your institutions, go ahead and
liberalize your economies. Then, and only then, will we help you."
What developing country seeking an evolutive process has not been on the
receiving end of this kind of message? How few, without adapting, have
managed to adopt new, realistic and productive policies?
There is no single model exportable to all. There is no absolute model
that works for everyone. It is in the name of principles and experiments, all
too often garbled within the framework of open-economy programmes and
democratization, that crushing failures have occurred. Has the debt burden
been eased? Have commodity export earnings in the third world increased?
Clearly, one figure speaks for all the others: that of the aid given by
rich countries to the poorer ones. Logically, it shows the importance
attached by the donors to the development projects they are supposed to
support. But the figures are rarely commensurate with their lofty ambitions;
that we must admit.

Can it be expected by any chance of the smaller countries in
particular that they should use other means to generate the resources
necessary for their own development? This would be to ignore the economic
fact of interaction and interdependence, which are difficult to manage and
cannot really be the sole responsibility of these small countries.
In seeking financial assistance, expertise and transfers of technology,
we are trying first to encourage international solidarity, without excluding
anyone and within as broad a context as possible. Was not that the great
lesson of Rio, despite the flaws and imperfections of political dialogue, in
that it reminded those who had been tempted to forget that everything is global
nowadays for better or for worse, as in marriage where reason prevails
over emotion?
However, despite the urgent need for proper solutions, four months after
the Rio Conference we are once again deploring the inertia of political
dialogue, the complaisance of declarations of intent and the lack of
perseverance in following up decisions.
The right to make a mistake is not enshrined in any constitution, and yet
are not famine, war and environmental disasters to name just three of the
worst scourges monumental mistakes? Silence denotes guilt. We must not
quibble or condemn here. We must agree on what we can do - together.


Allow me to express to you, Mr. President, and to the
free people of Bulgaria my sincere congratulations on behalf of Lithuania on
your election to such an eminent post. It is fitting that you, an active
participant in the creation of a new Europe, should preside over the
deliberations of this Assembly as it seeks to establish the foundations for a
revitalized United Nations. The task that confronts us is a result of the
many significant changes in the world.
Exactly four years ago in Lithuania, in the Cathedral Square of Vilnius,
people were beaten because they sought freedom. They had gathered to
commemorate the day in 1939 when, the Second World War having already begun,
Hitler sold to Stalin the as yet unconquered land of Lithuania with all its
people and all their rights. Almost half a century later, in 1988, no more
rights had been secured. So on that day, 28 September 1988, in Cathedral
Square, some staged hunger strikes for the release of political prisoners and
others sang songs and demanded freedom for their homeland, while still others
attacked with shields and rubber truncheons, beating those that sang.

Such was the struggle for rights and ideas a struggle that needed to be
understood and appreciated. And in the international commentary and portrayal
of this struggle, there also ensued a battle of ideas for right and truth.
Such was the non-violent struggle for liberation waged by Lithuania in the
name of independence and universally acknowledged Christian principles
unifying the ideas of truth and freedom.
A year has passed since that day in September when the Lithuanian flag
was raised at United Nations Headquarters. In that year we watched as the
Soviet Union - that great totalitarian empire stretching from the Baltic to
the Sea of Japan flickered and disappeared, and how that country was
replaced in its seat here at the United Nations by a new democratic Russia
assuming its predecessor's rights and obligations.
We also watched as parallel movements for national independence brought
down a small communist empire in the south of Central Europe on the Adriatic
coast. And we watched as both of these processes were accompanied by the
rather ambivalent sentiments and positions of the Western States that is, of
their leaders. The world order is moving in a positive direction we will
see less evil yet these changes seem to bring about a nostalgia for the old
order to which so many had grown accustomed.
Lithuania's position was not one of ambivalence. We supported
politically Armenia, Georgia and Moldova and the Muslim nations of the former
Soviet Union, proposing peaceful solutions to their problems. We were the
first to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, and this
year we recognized the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia.
Although this may not have been much, these policies nevertheless reflected a
position arising from our own experience and the principles we cherish.

And what is that experience?
The campaign against us was waged by magical means that perhaps can be
best described as communist voodoo politics, in which nothing is called by its
proper name. So we learned how to identify these phantoms and shadows and we
found that such ghosts, when called by their proper names, soon begin to fade.
The evil empire continues to fade away, but it has not vanished
altogether. Sometimes quite the opposite appears to be true its spirit is
so lively that it just may rise again among us and above us. For this reason,
when we call for the condemnation and trial of Soviet communism, when we see
and expose attempts to restore the USSR, we are in effect supporting
democratic Russia and international peace. Democratic Russia, which condemned
the 1940 Soviet annexation of Lithuania and recognized our independence,
re-established in 1990, should not refer to the Baltic countries as "newly
emerged" States. Those officials who continue to promulgate this misnomer do
a disservice to the truth and to their country, which is struggling to renew
itself, to rise above the lies of the past. This applies also to some other
labels and intentions.
We do not think, for example, that the Serbian army, operating in
neighbouring countries, could be called a "peace-keeping force", even if the
troops painted their helmets blue. We do not think that such forces,
authorized to act both on their own and on neighbouring territory, should
unilaterally establish their outposts wherever they please, without the
neighbouring country's consent.
We think that States and their armies should be called by their proper
names. "Serbia" and "Montenegro" are fine names, appropriate enough for a
federation title, so let old ghosts fade away. Defending one State's actions
against another under the guise of ethnic protection is dangerous.

specifically if the goal is to politicize what is clearly a legal matter. It
is even more dangerous to hide in this way the true nature of military
actions. When an assault is called by a more neutral term, such as
"conflict", this third-party position benefits the aggressor and that position
becomes neither objective nor neutral.

Lithuania has experienced this and I think that Lithuania's experience of
defending itself with the truth, and by avoiding political entrapments, can be
a useful example to others, including the Organization.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a big neighbour where a variety of
political forces are vying for power in sectors of society and government.
Some elements are democratic, some less so, and others not at all. Those
media circles in neighbouring Russia that inherited the characteristic
mind-set of the old empire are at present promoting aggressive anti-Baltic
sentiments, a substitute "cold-war" policy which surfaces in the statements of
its officials time and time again.
Allow me to share some concepts and statements, emanating from the
conservative elements of the Russian Parliament and the Foreign Ministry,
which alarm Russia's smaller neighbours. Foreign countries are there divided
into two categories: the inner sphere and the outer sphere.
Similarly, Lithuanian composer Bronius Kutavicius's musical score for
four of the instruments used have the designations of near violin, distant
violin, near piano and distant piano. The stage violin is the one that the
listener can reach from the front row and thus may feel the inclination to
grab as his "vital interest". Universal musical harmony is of less concern to
him. The 30 June 1992 document of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the
Russian Parliament recommends this position. The concept is not new; it has
been around since the time of Ivan the Terrible. It was used by other States
less successfully.
The "inner sphere" is designated as an extraordinary or special-interest
zone. This concept having been defined - and, if necessary a
Molotov-Ribbentrop-type pact may be signed military force may be used and
the former inner sphere is no longer a foreign land. Then the outer sphere

becomes the inner sphere and subsequently a special-interest zone.
Territorial expansion continues, and will continue, if resources permit, until
no foreign countries at all remain.
For those who believe this process of territorial expansionism to be
natural the opposite process is quite painful. For this reason attempts are
made to block it, to stop the withdrawal of troops from the neighbour's
territory; for this reason one must find someone to protect with this army as
a pretext not to remove troops. Those politicians like President Yeltsin who
think democratically and have a broader perspective, who want to withdraw the
army and to normalize relations, are called traitors who do not defend the
State's imperial interests. "Your interests are our interests", and "Your
rights are our rights", is said to fellow nationals abroad, especially to
those who think that their prime interest and right is the restoration of the
order and traditions of the former empire.
I take a different view. For example, in my opinion the best interest
and natural right of the Russian community in Estonia is to learn a little of
the Estonian language and after a few months to acquire Estonian citizenship,
according to the law about which there is so much outcry at present. We hear
no protest from Lithuanians living in Estonia, and Lithuania does not plan any
sanctions against that country. We will not suspend any of our treaties with
Estonia and we will not ask the United Nations to impose any sanctions against
it. I have not heard that similar actions have been demanded by Israel or
Ukraine, although the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation in his
statement to the Assembly at this session was also concerned about other
nationalities residing in Estonia.

We disagree with the opinion expressed in the Russian periodical
Diplomatic Bulletin that a referendum or other type of vote in one State may
be regarded as an act of force against another State, with a presumed right of
that State to resort to
"reactive measures, and not necessarily ones of an equivalent character".
Such diplomacy is based on the hope that:
"Russia will not be condemned, at least by those nations which at that
moment will be directing their planes towards a Libya or an Iraq".
These are words uttered in August 1992, but they sound as if they were uttered
in January 1991.
When we hear from this very rostrum that it is necessary to use force to
protect human rights we immediately begin asking ourselves who is this
policeman-defender who comes, let us say, from Russia to Moldova or from
Serbia to Bosnia. In Dubrovnik and in Sarajevo he defends his minority rights
in very strange ways. It reminds me of an old and macabre dissident joke from
the days of Stalin. The first man asks "Will there be a third world war?"
The second answers "No, there will not, but there will be such a battle for
peace that not one stone will be left on another."
For this reason we would not want to see Russian peace-keeping forces
transforming themselves into forces that would impose a Russian peace, a "Pax
Ruthenia", in the inner sphere of foreign countries. We wish that somebody
would remember the human rights of the hundreds of thousands of people
deported from the Baltic countries, including the right to compensation, and
that someone, possibly the United Nations, would help to raise from the bottom
of the Baltic Sea the poisons of the Second World War that were dropped off
our shores by the Soviet army. The right of anyone to live on the shores of
the Baltic Sea is now in danger.

We would like to see the world community help all nations rising from the
Red plague and to see the family of nations assist Russia economically and
also in its search for democracy and justice. It should be a matter of
universal concern that the dead hand of communism should not drag down into
its marble mausoleum the entire nation and possibly all mankind. We should
resist this danger by upholding other values, not those from the realm of
ghosts of the past.
Lithuania and the other Baltic States again present a challenge to
Russia, and the world will see how it responds. Maybe the economic pressure
and measures of an undeclared blockade directed against us are not direct
punishment for destruction of the empire or help to our leftist opposition in
Lithuania. Maybe these are just the difficulties of Russia itself, although
probably not exclusively of an economic nature. We also have these
difficulties and thus we know them well.
Recently signed bilateral agreements on the withdrawal of the Russian
armed forces from Lithuania give us hope. These agreements were welcomed by
the democratic world and a multitude of people of good will. I do not doubt
that the United Nations will urge that such agreements should also be signed
between Latvia and Russia as well as between Russia and Estonia. Moreover,
the process of withdrawal of the armed forces should be carefully monitored in
order that the four States may as soon as possible achieve normalization of
their relations under conditions of security, prosperity and friendship
between all the nations of the region.

I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to express that hope.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about United Nations
structural reforms. These reforms are also tied to our experience.
When a large State pressures and accuses a small neighbour, the latter
should find support here, at the United Nations, which is duty-bound to defend
small States. Changes in representation could be made, such as establishing a
Group of Small European States at the United Nations with its specific vision
of global problems and shared concern for preserving national identity.
Perhaps that "Little Europe" could initiate a solidarity movement in behalf of
small States around the globe.
The Security Council could be expanded to include three new permanent
members - Japan, Germany and India and the exercise of the right to veto
from that day forward could require not one but at least two permanent
members' invoking that right at the same time.
I respectfully request that these ideas be included in the ongoing debate
of ideas being considered at the United Nations.


 Permit me to
congratulate you, Mr. President, on your election, which symbolizes the spirit
of renewal of the present period in international relations. Many of our
countries aspire to emulate your country's efforts to overcome obstacles and
spread political and economic freedom and become a productive part of the world
system.
The Government of Peru shares those same objectives, and is seeking to
restore the legitimacy and trustworthiness that have been lacking in the
past. To that end, we are seeking to modernize, to consolidate democracy and
economic competitiveness and, above all, to base our actions on the interests
of the majority. In a word, we are attempting to engage in a true process of
redefinition and national reconstruction.
The majority of the Members of the United Nations face similar problems,
but nothing can be done if the Organization cannot begin to function as a
genuinely multilateral association of sovereign nations with equal rights and
duties as provided for in the Charter. To that end we must reform the United
Nations and make it more effective, with the same perseverance and
determination our Governments have shown in their national reconstruction
efforts.
Democratization through decision-making by consensus; administrative
reform; a balance among the various bodies of the Organization; and improved
cooperation for development: these are among the crucial factors for the
future of the United Nations and for its prestige and authority. The
developing countries have the ongoing task of ensuring respect for the
principles of the Charter. On the basis of those same principles, the major
Powers must redefine their real national priorities. It would then be

possible to decide on a mandate agreeable to both sides that would orient the
rebirth of the United Nations and prevent erratic extremism.
The collapse of communism did not mean the automatic disappearance of the
world's problems, but it has given the world community its first opportunity
in 50 years to reorient international relations towards peace and well-being.
We face an unprecedented, formidable effort that can now begin in propitious
circumstances. The bases of this common effort are: development; the
solution of disputes by diplomatic means; respect for law; and the application
of fundamental economic and political freedoms. The United Nations system is
the only mechanism creative enough to put this into effect. Only though
multilateral cooperation will it be possible to conflate collective action and
respect for national sovereignty without manoeuvring to preserve or increase
international influence which would be even worse in a world free of
ideological motivations or the imperatives of the cold war.
For our countries as a group, it is vitally important to resume the
North-South dialogue on a constructive and realistic basis. None of the
global problems threatening the survival of mankind can be dealt with
adequately without the active participation of the developing countries. The
economic and social aspects of multilateral policy are in the interests of all
Member States. United Nations action in this realm has been notoriously
inadequate.
With the ideological confrontation of the post-War period overcome, the
most urgent problem today is the world recession and the consequent risk of
regional isolationism. Undue concern for political and security matters or a
narrow view of world problems can cloak conservative impulses and new
protectionist tendencies, which would pose the threat of undue interference.

The threat of this new world division can be dispelled only if we all agree
that the various aspects of North-South relations together constitute the most
urgent, critical factor of international security.
None the less, Peru recognizes the importance and urgency of maintaining
peace and preventing conflicts. We are prepared to expand our traditional
participation in peace-keeping operations. The Secretary-General's Agenda for
Peace sets out many innovative ideas for the future of United Nations action
in this sphere, and we firmly support them.
The situation of Peru exemplifies the unyielding relationship among
national, regional and world bodies. In our case, this relationship,
frequently addressed by the theoreticians of international relations, becomes
something of a paradigm, because my country has worked to promote its national
interests, respect for national sovereignty and multilateral action. In other
words, Peru seeks to reconcile a political programme dealing both with the
viability of its internal plans and with foreign affairs through a consistent
economic and financial programme. At this point in international relations,
we cannot imagine that a State like Peru can exist without coherence among
those three factors. Without this, we would be under constant threat from
fragmentation of sovereignty which has already done damage in other parts of
the world or from harsh limitations of sovereignty resulting from the
interventionist nature of the new global challenges and the consequences of
hasty multilateralism.
We view regional action as relevant, because we consider that the future
of the multilateral system is based on the development of trustworthy regional
organizations. These must play a growing role in the promotion of democracy,
 fostering development, in overcoming conflicts, in supplying humanitarian
assistance and in maintaining peace.

In our region, Peru is working to ensure that the Organization of
American States will play its new role and go beyond the rituals of rhetoric
and ostracism. We cannot continue to hold back a hemispheric organization
whose work must be based on solidarity and must be effective to address the
fundamental issues that threaten democracy and development.

The democratization of international relations can be achieved in a
number of ways. Peru believes that one of the most effective of these is the
strengthening of regional organizations, which are ideal forums for dealing
with any substantive issue. All the situations that now call for speedy and
effective action are the legacy of the dynamics of the cold war. Today we
need imaginative solutions that combine the global vision of the United
Nations with contributions by regional bodies. This is no easy task, because
both approaches require the political will of Member States; but given the
uncertainty of international relations, that will must consistently be made
manifest in all bodies where States come together, as is obviously the case
with the wide range of neighbourly relations we enjoy within our Organization.
The Government of Peru shares the desire of the Government of Ecuador,
expressed by the President of that country, Mr. Duran Ballen, in his statement
last Friday. He spoke about the need to promote joint development between the
two countries. In this context, and bearing in mind the fact that Peru gives
priority to the strengthening of its fraternal bonds with Ecuador,
President Alberto Fujimori in November 1991 put forward a proposal for
friendship, cooperation and integration. This proposal was aimed at
reorienting bilateral relations to reflect the desires of our peoples to
strengthen good-neighbourly relations and development.
Peru is convinced that the common will for understanding expressed during
the State visit by President Fujimori of Ecuador in January 1992, as well as
in the interview with President Duran Ballen in Quito last August, when he
assumed the presidency of Ecuador, will continue in further meetings between
the two Heads of State, making it possible gradually to harmonize our
respective positions and to deepen our relations.

As is well known, the crisis in Peru has reached an extreme because of
the actions of terrorist groups and as a result of our dire economic
situation. But we must avoid simplistic interpretations which maintain, for
example, that ours is an ethnic problem pitting an indigenous population, the
descendants of defeated Incas, against a political class descended from the
Spanish conquistadors. This interpretation is thought-provoking and linear
but inaccurate. Exploitation of man by man is a historic fact which many
generations of Peruvians have striven to cancel out. But it is also a
struggle to reconcile characteristics of an idiosyncrasy rooted in a profound
and extensive mixing of races - characteristics that at times may clash but
that at others can mesh fraternally throughout the breadth of Peru, fragmented
as it is by its topography, and to the depth of the baroque culture of this
the oldest nation State of South America.
The cumulative ancestral problems of five centuries have given rise to a
social breakdown which may now be called historical. To this unstable legacy
are now added new challenges, including a quarter of a century of economic
stagnation and internal migration, with its accompanying demographic explosion
and mushrooming slums, and culminating during the past decade in
narco-terrorism. Quite naturally, this has produced a tacit alienation
between the State and society and as a result rightly or wrongly people
have perceived the State as an obstacle or impediment instead of as a
guarantee of meeting the basic needs of society.
In the face of these challenges, an ambitious and difficult programme to
put the country's economy and finances on a healthier footing was begun in
1990; it is now on the verge of bringing economic recovery and renewal of the
State apparatus. An anti-terrorist strategy culminated a few days ago in the
capture of the founder of the terrorist group Shining Path.

The conciliation Peru now seeks between its ancestral culture and the
modern-day exigencies of competition is not impossible. It can be achieved by
modernizing the economy and public institutions and by eliminating insecurity
through joint efforts of the State and society against terrorism. What is
needed is a representative democracy that is more attentive to the real
immediate interests of the people, along with institutions that can guarantee
an efficient dialogue between the State and society. This civic progress can
be successfully made through a modern parliament, through integrity and
efficiency in the administration of justice, and through the constant efforts
of the political classes, both new and traditional, in order to surmount the
country's problems in light of reality rather than of doctrine.
At this complicated juncture Peru does not stand alone. It has enjoyed
the understanding of other countries in the hemisphere and the thoughtful
support of countries in other parts of the world. The understanding reached
with regard to Peru's problems in the Organization of American States
represents a historic landmark in the work of that organization and augurs
well for its intelligent and dynamic responses to future challenges.
The decision to respond positively to Peru's request for technical
support and to send observers to the elections to be held in November is the
expression of a joint effort to interpret, in a definite and transparent
manner, the desires of the people and the Government of Peru to elect a
constituent congress which will lead to new institutional viability for our
democracy.
The Shining Path obsession has not only divided the country but created
antagonisms between the State and society, destroying both and creating
instead a totalitarian response to the national crisis. The various stages

of the Shining Path, stripped of anecdote and rhetorical effect, began with
the exploitation of a short-lived and fairly confined Andean uprising,
followed by coercive recruitment, employing intimidation and violence against
peasants. In this context, given the movement's tenuous strength in the rural
areas, it launched an assault on the cities, carrying out fierce
assassinations of true urban leaders and bombing civil targets.
During recent stages, the Shining Path had already established an
unnatural alliance with Peru's most powerful and illegitimate transnational
force, drug trafficking. It had filled the growing popular vacuum with its
radicalized violence, taking new terrorist forms to extremes and moving from
the countryside, where it had never taken root, to the city in a so-called
"strategic step" which only the narcissistic cult of its leadership could
sustain. This final stage of self-intoxicated obstinacy was the beginning of
the end.
Society reacted. From apprehension and despair, we moved silently to
indignation and took the offensive, making it possible to create an atmosphere
propitious to the recent capture of the founder of this Utopian movement that
Peru considers to be the antithesis of its nationality. While it would be
overly optimistic to say that we are approaching the light at the end of the
tunnel, we can indeed perceive the fresh air of a new era of hope.
The Peruvian people have overcome their paralysis and are now taking
action against terrorism. Now that its genocidal practices have been
uncovered and the Shining Path is being stymied by the renewed thrust of
democracy in Peru, the efforts of the hemisphere must lead to international
cooperation. In essence what we are trying to do is to promote the most
effective integration of Peru into the world economy; at the same time, we

must contribute to the country's internal security and cooperate in the
dismantling of external agents who are still promoting terrorism in this
nation. Here, in a word, lies the solidarity demanded by Peru and which the
Charter requires of us, the United Nations.


I wish to begin by congratulating my
colleague Mr. Stoyan Ganev on his election to the high office of President of
the General Assembly. He can rest assured that the delegation of Finland will
render him its full support in his challenging task.
On behalf of my Government I wish also to extend a warm welcome to the 13
new Members amongst us. Their participation in the work of the United Nations
will further strengthen the Organization.
Since the beginning of this year the United Nations has had a new
Secretary-General. Faced with many difficult challenges,
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has already shown, in word and in deed, that he is
firmly in charge. We wish him all success in his work.

The United Nations Charter was drafted under dramatic circumstances
during the final stages of the Second World War. After two world wars, the
United Nations was given the responsibility for maintaining peace and security
for future generations. Now, decades later, the Organization also faces a
multitude of other major challenges: those of development, protection of the
environment and promotion of democracy and human rights. Courageous and
visionary leadership is now called for to create a new United Nations for a
new international era.
The Security Council demonstrated such leadership at its historic summit
meeting held in January. After decades of cold war, the summit set new
priorities for the United Nations in the promotion of peace and security
worldwide, and provided guidelines for a more active United Nations
involvement in the maintenance of peace.
In response to the initiative taken by the Security Council summit the
Secretary-General has submitted an excellent report under the title "An Agenda
for Peace". In it he has innovatively addressed the question of how the full
potential of the United Nations can be most effectively used in the service of
peace and international security. The report is a comprehensive effort by the
Secretary-General to relate preventive diplomacy, peace-making and
peace-keeping, as well as peace-building, to the changing political and
security requirements of the world today.

I am especially pleased to note that the Secretary-General's thinking and
many of his recommendations are well in line with what Finland, often together
with the other Nordic countries, has itself long advocated.
As expressed so clearly in the Secretary-General's report, it is not
sufficient that the United Nations should succeed in putting an end to
conflicts. The best way to deal with conflicts is to prevent them. This is a
complicated but vital task, where the capacity of the United Nations should be
considerably strengthened.
Different methods could come into question, depending on the specific
circumstances of each case. But the necessary basis for any prevention is
continuous information-gathering and monitoring exercised both by the
Secretary-General and by the Security Council. Early deployment of monitors
or peace-keepers should be considered whenever necessary for effective
prevention.
May I add that we are also grateful to the Secretary-General for the
innovative treatment of post-conflict, comprehensive peace-building in his
report.
When the capacity of the United Nations to keep peace and prevent
conflicts has been stretched to its limit, it is natural that other
means should be taken under consideration. Here regional organizations and
agencies can play a significant role. The Secretary-General's repeated calls
for closer cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and
regional organizations are well-founded.
At its Helsinki Summit in July, the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) responded constructively. CSCE has strengthened
its capacity for conflict management and peace-keeping.
We also support the Secretary-General's idea of periodic consultations
between the United Nations and regional arrangements on confidence-building
measures.
The tragic situation in former Yugoslavia shows clearly how a complex
problem requires an innovative approach. Under the joint leadership of the
United Nations and the European Community, the Conference, with its six
working groups, is seeking solutions to the multitude of political, ethnic,
humanitarian and other problems in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
CSCE is also actively engaged in supporting the settlement of the conflict.

In this context, let me say that Finland supports the Security Council
recommendation to the General Assembly that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
should apply for membership in the United Nations and should not participate
in the work of the General Assembly in the meantime.
While regional organizations should play a greater role in dealing with
threats to security in their respective regions, the United Nations, through
its Security Council, retains, of course, its unique and primary role and
special instruments in maintaining international peace and security.
The Secretary-General reminds us of the most potent instrument available
to the Security Council, Article 42 of the Charter. We agree with him that
the last-resort option of taking military action is essential to the
credibility of the United Nations as a guarantor of international security.
While not underestimating the problems involved, we believe that the Security
Council and all Members of the Organization should seriously consider the
proposals of the Secretary-General concerning peace-enforcement units, as well
as the negotiation of agreements in accordance with Article 43 of the Charter.
Proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction constitutes a major
threat to international peace and security. International norms of
non-proliferation should be strengthened through universal and credible
adherence to them.
Finland welcomes the recently concluded chemical-weapons convention. It
is a vital and long-awaited part of the international non-proliferation regime
and should attract as many original signatories as possible. Finland, for its
part, will be among the first States to sign and ratify the convention.
Unrestrained accumulation of conventional arms can lead to regional
instability. It is therefore essential that especially the major

arms-exporting countries should exercise restraint individually and
collectively. It is also necessary that all relevant transfers should be
fully reported to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
The Security Council summit represented a firm recommitment to the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The
Secretary-General, for his part, has seized the momentum and turned this new
commitment into a programme for concrete action. In the promotion of peace
and security, this is indeed the beginning of a new era in the history of the
United Nations.
On the same positive note, I should like to turn to another summit, the
Earth Summit, held at Rio de Janeiro. Alongside the task of maintaining peace
and security, a new equally courageous and visionary leadership is called for
on sustainable development. At Rio a remarkable number of Heads of State and
Government responded to that call and drew guidelines for world-wide
sustainable development. Although our expectations could not all be
fulfilled, the Earth Summit showed that the United Nations and the
international community can achieve remarkable results when minds meet.
Yet Rio was only the beginning of a long process towards sustainable
development. In that process, a fundamental change is needed first and
foremost in attitudes a change in our own life-styles. And we need a strong
political will to direct that change. A sustainable future can be brought
about only by putting the treaties agreed upon at Rio into force and by
translating the principles of the Declaration and Agenda 21 into action. In
this the Commission on Sustainable Development will have an essential role to
play.

The conventions signed at Rio are just an initial core for a
comprehensive legal framework, which should guide mankind in the right
direction. What we do need is a full set of internationally binding
agreements which redirects production and consumption patterns in each and
every country. We also need effective conventions covering natural
resources. Here instruments on desertification and sustainable forestry are
the most urgent ones.
The future of mankind requires sustainable development, management and
conservation of forests of all types of forests everywhere. Forests have
both an important national dimension and an important global dimension.
Forests are a valuable national resource which must be utilized for the
benefit of the local population. Sustainable forestry is also economically
beneficial. While the sovereignty of nations over their forest resources
should be respected, that sovereignty should not be misused.
Finland, for its part, is prepared to participate actively in launching
the negotiations on the global forest convention on the basis of the forest
principles agreed upon at Rio. Here we have to build a better understanding
of the need for such an international instrument. We also have to build
mutual confidence founded on the unique role of forests in the global
ecosystem.
To implement what was agreed at Rio is a tall order for any country, and
particularly for developing countries. Many of them will need the assistance
of the international community and the United Nations. New and additional
resources required by developing countries must be provided in a timely
manner. That is a heavy task for the donor community, as it has to shoulder
the responsibility of also assisting the new democracies in transition.

The results of the Earth Summit do indeed underline the unique and
indispensable role of the United Nations in promoting development. They will
have a crucial impact on the entire economic and social sector of the United
Nations and on the work of the Economic and Social Council. Development
deserves the same priority and attention as peace and security.
Development is not only economic and social progress; it is also
promotion of democracy and human rights. No longer do questions of violations
of human rights belong exclusively to the sovereign domain of States. On the
contrary, respect for human rights and democracy is an integral part of
international relations. It is therefore one of the main responsibilities of
the United Nations to see to it that they are respected world wide.
The Economic and Social Council is the principal organ of the United
Nations for development. It is important and urgently necessary that the
Economic and Social Council be strengthened so that it can gain the true
leadership role for sustainable development and promotion of human rights and
democracy.
The demands put on the United Nations today are unprecedented. New
challenges have to be met and financed. Finland shares the
Secretary-General's concerns regarding the Organization's ability to function
in the present financial crisis. We are therefore willing to consider
constructively any of his proposals. Finland is particularly anxious to see
the General Assembly take the first step recommended by the Secretary-General:
the establishment of a peace-keeping reserve fund to meet the initial expenses
of peace-keeping operations pending receipt of assessed contributions. The
Nordic countries have long advocated this step. With the recent expansion of
operations, the need for such a fund is acute.

It is not in keeping with the honour, interests or legal obligations of
the Member States for the United Nations to exist in "its present mendicancy",
to use the words of the Secretary-General. For members of any club, paying
dues is <¬ª duty, not an option. While exceptional measures may be needed to
guarantee the uninterrupted functioning of the United Nations in the present
crisis, the overall funding of the Organization must be built on the
collective responsibility of the entire membership. We have a common interest
to invest in improved security and development towards a more prosperous and
democratic world.
The United Nations Charter remains fully valid today as regards the
maintenance of international peace and security and, by and large, also as
regards the promotion of international cooperation in the economic, social,
and human rights sectors. In facing the new challenges, especially in the
promotion of sustainable development and democracy, the primary issue is how
we can best build on the Charter and even amend it, where necessary.
As it approaches the end of the second millennium, humanity is faced with
formidable challenges. Meeting them will not be easy; I have no illusions
about that. Yet the United Nations now has a. better chance than ever to use
its full potential and show leadership for the sake of a better future.


I would like to begin by expressing to you, Mr. President, our sincere
congratulations on your election to the presidency of the forty-seventh
session of the General Assembly. The trust and confidence bestowed upon you
reflects appreciation for you personally as well as recognition of the
positive role played by your country, Bulgaria, in international affairs. I
wish you success in the pursuit of your mission.
On this occasion, I would like to congratulate your predecessor.
Ambassador Samir Shihabi, for his effective conduct of the affairs of the
General Assembly during its previous session.
I also would like to acknowledge the continued sincere efforts by the
Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to enhance the prospects for
peace and reduce the elements of tension which prevail in many parts of the
world. These efforts and pursuits represent a continuation of the efforts of
his predecessor, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar.
I am pleased to join with the other heads of delegations in welcoming all
the States which have joined the United Nations this year so that they may
participate, along with all other Member States, in realizing the noble
objectives of this Organization. It is my hope that these States will be able
to play an effective role in the Organization, and contribute positively to
the realization of peace, security, stability, and development for the benefit
of the international community as a whole.
We are assembled here in this international forum in which nations, small
and large, powerful and weak, meet on the basis of equality and work together
for the establishment of right and justice, order and security, prosperity and
peace. We learn from the lessons of the past, to chart a course for the
future in an environment of fast-changing global conditions and

circumstances. We follow, with great interest, the general trends of what has
come to be known as the new world order, an order founded upon the principles
of the United Nations and on the tenets of international legality. This order
rejects the use of force in the settlement of disputes. We must understand
that this order cannot evolve by itself, but requires us to change our
perception of the role of the United Nations. We must develop our methods and
practices in harmony with the basic principles of the Organization, whose
purpose is to replace war ind destruction with cooperation between nations and
peoples and thereby lead to development, respect for the dignity of man,
security, peace and prosperity for our world.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to bring about a fundamental change in
our understanding of the role of the United Nations from one of crisis
management and the preservation of peace to one of active participation in
peacemaking.
In this context, I would like to express appreciation for the proposals
presented by the Secretary-General for enhancing the role and effectiveness of
the United Nations. His Agenda for Peace which contained those proposals,
deserves prompt attention, objective consideration and thorough study in order
for us to arrive at an appropriate formula for the functioning of the
Organization that would be compatible with its desired more effective role.
Subsequently, attention could be given to the introduction of basic structural
and institutional changes, if required.
Even a cursory review of the current international situation would reveal
that there still remain hotbeds of tension which threaten security and
stability in many regions of the world. It would show too that the role of
the United Nations becomes increasingly more important concomitantly with the

increase in the possibilities and opportunities for cooperation among nations
in enhancing and supporting the Organization so that no nation may commit
aggression against or threaten the security, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of any other nation.
The United Nations has clearly demonstrated that it is capable of playing
such a role when it firmly faced up to the Iraqi aggression against its
neighbour, Kuwait, a peaceful nation that may be small in size but which plays
a major role and makes major contributions to the family of nations. By so
doing, the United Nations was able to liberate Kuwait from a blatant
aggression and restore legality to its territory. The image of this noble
stand still remains before us and is indelibly etched in our minds.
On this occasion, it behoves us to express our appreciation and
admiration for this role and to emphasize now, more than ever, the need for it
to continue and be promoted, for we have noticed recently the return of the
Iraqi regime to the pattern of threats and false claims regarding Kuwait in a
manner that is reminiscent of that regime's declarations on the eve of its
aggression against Kuwait. In so doing, it makes a mockery of its obligations
under international treaties and resolutions. It also continues to
procrastinate in implementing the resolutions of the Security Council and
fails to comply with their stipulations. It has given itself the right, on
the basis of sovereignty, to starve and humiliate the Iraqi people and subject
Iraq to dangers that threaten its unity and security while it goes on
claiming, falsely and slanderously, that it is the international community
that is responsible for the dangers that beset Iraq and the miseries of its
people.

We are totally convinced that the only means of averting instability in
the region and dealing with the suffering of the people of Iraq lies, first
and foremost in ensuring the complete and comprehensive implementation of the
resolution of the Security Council which reflect the collective will of the
international community.

We have heard, with great concern, the declaration by the United Arab
Emirates that its efforts have failed to achieve a peaceful and amicable
solution with the Islamic Republic of Iran in relation to the complete
sovereignty of the United Arab Emirates over the three islands of Abu Mousa,
Tun the Greater and Tun the Smaller. We express our support for the position
taken by the United Arab Emirates on this issue and for its demand that Iran
reverse its unilateral actions and that the problem be settled through
negotiations on the basis of international law and international legality.
The Middle East is among the regions which attract a great deal of the
international community's attention and is the focus of its efforts. It is
time that this region enjoyed its rightful share of peace, security and
stability so that all its energies may be directed towards development and all
its resources may be devoted to ensuring the prosperity of its peoples. The
Middle East is capable of providing a decent standard of living for all its
inhabitants and has the potential to become a peaceful oasis of stability,
prosperity and creativity.
To achieve the objectives we desire, it is our vital duty to strive to
eliminate the threat posed by the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction
in the Middle East. We therefore welcome the conclusion of negotiations on
the non-proliferation convention banning chemical weapons. The draft
convention resulting from those negotiations is before the General Assembly at
its current session. We affirm our support for the objectives of the draft
convention. This support derives from the great concern of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to make the Middle East a region free from weapons of mass
destruction of all kinds whether nuclear, chemical or biological. However,

that goal can be reached only when all States in the region without exception
refrain from the production, stockpiling or possession of weapons of mass
destruction of any kinds.
It should be noted that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has adhered, both in
word and in deed, to the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, and the Arab States have demonstrated the collective will to
adhere to that Treaty as well. It has therefore become imperative that all
States in the region, including Israel, abide by both the chemical-weapons
convention and the non-proliferation Treaty, so as to achieve the desired
balance necessary for peace, security and stability for all States in the
region.
The Arab States have expressed a sincere, genuine desire to establish a
permanent, just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. This has been
demonstrated by their participation in the peace negotiations sponsored by the
United States and the Russian Federation. Their positive position in those
negotiations has proved to be a serious orientation towards ending the
Arab-Israeli conflict and towards achieving a just settlement of the
Palestinian question that would ensure the restoration of the legitimate
rights of the Palestinian people on the basis of Security Council resolutions
242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and other relevant resolutions of international
legality.
In that context, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has lent its full support to
the current Middle East peace process. Saudi Arabia believes that no genuine
peace can be achieved in the Middle East unless a permanent, just solution to
the Palestinian question is reached and unless Israel withdraws from all the
occupied Arab territories, including Al-Quds which is an integral part of the

occupied Arab territories. The question of Al-Quds has a focal place in the
policy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is one of its constant concerns,
within the context of the relevant United Nations resolutions and of the
resolutions of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The success of the current Middle East peace process clearly depends on a
serious, genuine commitment by Israel to implement the resolutions of
international legality and on Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied Arab
territories, including Al-Quds Al-Sharif.
The Lebanese Government has made considerable progress in the
implementation of the Taef accords and has adopted the necessary political and
constitutional measures in that context. We must continue to support the
efforts of the legitimate authorities in Lebanon and contribute to the process
of reconstruction in Lebanon. In that regard, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
appeals to the international community to help facilitate the establishment of
an international fund to assist Lebanon. We must also reiterate the need for
an Israeli commitment fully and unconditionally to implement Security Council
resolution 425 (1978), which calls on Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon
to enable the Lebanese Government to extend legitimate authority over the
entire territory of Lebanon.
The General Assembly was right in deciding to deny the legality of the
succession of the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the seat held by
the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We view this as a step
in the right direction and hope that other steps will follow with a view to
restoring peace and stability to that part of the Balkans.

The people of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina are falling victim
to a genocidal war waged by Serbian forces with the support of Serbia and
Montenegro. That genocidal war has claimed thousands of innocent victims and
has resulted in the displacement of a large portion of the population away
from their homes and possessions. My country has already declared its full
support for the decisions and resolutions adopted with the consent of all
parties concerned at the recent London Conference on the situation in the
former Yugoslavia.

We hope that concerted efforts will be made to ensure the full and
serious implementation of those resolutions. So far, however, we regret that
none of them has been implemented. We refer to resolutions such as those
concerned with the placement of heavy weapons and artillery under
international supervision; declaring the airspace of the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina a no-fly zone for the operations of military aircraft; the
release of all prisoners-of-war and detainees; the dismantling of detention
camps; and the termination of the policy of ethnic cleansing.
On this issue, the Government of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques
does not believe that ensuring the delivery of humanitarian assistance through
the United Nations to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina is sufficient.
Rather, we believe that all necessary measures should be adopted to stop all
the acts of genocide and displacement that are being perpetrated by the
Serbian forces with the support of the Belgrade regime. That requires the
intensification of pressure on the Serbs and their supporters to force them to
abide by the commitments they took upon themselves at the London Conference.
The creation of a permanent mechanism to monitor the implementation of those
commitments is very necessary.
We note with grave concern that there is some hesitation in declaring the
airspace of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a no-fly zone for the
military aircraft of Serbia and Montenegro. The hesitation ostensibly stems
from a concern that such a step would lead to an aggravation of the
situation. But the situation is extremely grave as it is and cannot get much
worse. The real dangers to be taken into consideration are those which the
citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina face, namely, genocide, displacement and

torture. All of those constitute the most flagrant violations of the United
Nations Charter, the principles and tenets of international law, and the
Fourth Geneva Convention. The war that rages there is not even a civil war
but a war of extermination waged openly on the people of a sovereign,
independent State whose territory has been occupied by the perpetrators of
that brutal and savage aggression.
Accordingly, we call upon the Security Council of the United Nations to
take all necessary measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,
including Article 42; starting with the declaring of the airspace of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina a no-fly zone for the air forces of Serbia
and Montenegro and ensuring the withdrawal of all regular and irregular
Serbian forces from the territories of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. At the same time, we urge the international community to make
available all possible material, military and moral support to enable the
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to exercise fully the legitimate right of
self-defence. In the absence of an effective collective security mechanism,
the arms embargo on the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be lifted.
We are also of the view that those responsible for grave violations of
the Fourth Geneva Convention should be apprehended and placed on trial
according to the principles and provisions of international law. We also
support the right of the people and Government of the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina to just compensation from Serbia and Montenegro for the loss of
life and property they have suffered.
Somalia is currently a nation plagued by disasters and tragedies as a
result of a destructive civil war which has brought upon its people death and

displacement and undermined its unity and territorial integrity. The
Government of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques have endeavoured from the
outset of the conflict in sisterly Somalia to contain that conflict invited
all the parties to the conflict to meet on Saudi soil for the purpose of
achieving national reconciliation. Saudi Arabia still exerts all possible
efforts to put an end to that fratricidal conflict. Saudi Arabia also
provides assistance and relief to Somalia and unequivocally supports the role
of the United Nations in delivering assistance to those who deserve it. It
has welcomed the dispatch of international forces to supervise operations that
provide humanitarian assistance to all regions of Somalia. The Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia hopes that concerted international efforts will be made to
provide all possible assistance and relief to this afflicted nation and
supports the effort to put an end to the bloodshed. We urge all Somali
factions to work together towards making their national interest and human
values their overriding objective so as to eliminate the causes of conflict
and disunity among them.
After 13 years of successful jihad the Afghani people were able to
triumph over injustice and regain their national identity. On this occasion
we look forward to the joining of all constructive and sincere efforts to
enable the Afghani people to achieve security and stability in their nation.
We also look forward to the return of normal conditions throughout
Afghanistan, to make possible the rebuilding of what has been destroyed and
thus to enable the people of Afghanistan to work towards achieving a national
unity that would bring together the various groups and organizations and
provide a climate conducive to national unity and the deployment of concerted

efforts in pooling all energies and resources for the well-being and in the
interests of that country's people.
We also need to point out that that part of the world is still suffering
from the continuation of the Jamu-Kashmir problem, which continues to be an
element of instability in the region. The Government of the Custodian of the
Two Holy Mosques believe that a solution must be found on the basis of United
Nations resolutions to put an end to this long-standing conflict which has
cast its shadow over relations between the two neighbours, India and Pakistan.

While voicing its regrets at the violence South Africa has been
experiencing over the past few months and the serious setbacks it has caused
to the efforts aiming at ending the apartheid system, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia welcomes the recent developments in that country, which revive our hope
for progress towards the dismantling of that abhorrent system. The Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia supports a major role for the United Nations in offering
appropriate solutions and in working towards the establishment of a society
governed by equality and justice.
The positive changes that have taken place in the international political
situation are bound to pave the way for addressing the issues of development
and for the creation of an international economic environment that would help
the developing nations to achieve the sort of economic and social development
that would enable them to realize the ambitions and aspirations of their
peoples after a better life of peace and prosperity. The developed
industrialized nations can cooperate in making this possible by opening their
markets to the products of the developing nations, ending all protectionist
measures, bringing about at an early date a successful outcome to the Uruguay
Round of multilateral trade talks and by finding an urgent solution to the
debt problem. Economic cooperation between the developing countries
themselves is also necessary as it would constitute a fundamental tool for the
promotion of international economic growth.
Questions pertaining to the situation of the world economy are of great
importance and interest to us in Saudi Arabia, for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
has a stake in ensuring the stability and soundness of the world economy and
in avoiding the hurdles and pitfalls that may affect its growth.

Proceeding from this, it has responded positively to the ongoing
discussions on the environment and development and has shouldered its
responsibility in this respect by participating in the international
deliberations aimed at finding well-balanced and practicable solutions to the
questions of climatic change on a sound scientific basis.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is convinced that the future of the world and
the prosperity of all its inhabitants depend on a clear understanding of the
environmental problems that face the planet, full understanding of the
consequences that may result from the policies adopted in dealing with those
problems, careful weighing of the burdens and commitments taken by the
countries of the world upon themselves in addressing those problems, special
attention to the situation of the developing energy producers and consumers
alike and careful examination of the effects the policies adopted in dealing
with the problems may have on the growth of the economies of those countries.
This would constitute a valuable contribution to the achievement of
comprehensive development and the raising of the standard of living of our
peoples so that they may enjoy prosperity, peace, security and stability. The
current international situation that has developed from the ending of the cold
war and the progress achieved in the areas of disarmament and reductions in
conventional weapons, is a rare opportunity indeed for channelling resultant
windfalls towards solving the problems of development and underdevelopment.
The international community is on the threshold of a historic new era
whose challenges and promises are unfolding under our eyes. We are duty-bound
to lay solid and equitable foundations that define the parameters of the
future that humanity has always aspired after, a future in which no one would
awaken to the expectation of war or goes to bed haunted by the nightmarish

prospects of destruction, a future that would melt down the weapons of
destruction in order to forge the tools of prosperity for all, a future in
which the dangers of pollution, the effects of underdevelopment and the pains
of displacement would vanish. We shall never attain such a future unless we
lay the foundations of peace on right and justice. And peace is the essence
of our Islamic faith. As the Holy Koran says:
0 ye who believe!
Enter into Islam
Whole-heartedly;
And follow not
The footsteps
Of the Evil One;
For he is to you
An avowed enemy.