Every year at the United Nations, we go through the
same ritual. We attend the general debate knowing
beforehand that the clamour for justice and peace by
our underdeveloped countries will be ignored once
again. However, we persist. We know that we are right.
We know that one day we will accomplish social
justice and development. We also know that such assets
will not be given away to us. We know that the peoples
will have to seize them from those who deny us justice
today, because they underpin their wealth and
arrogance with disdain for our grief. It will not be
always like that, however. We say so today with more
conviction than ever before.
Having said this, and knowing as we do that some
powerful ones — just a few — present here will be
chagrined, and also knowing that they are shared by
many, Cuba will now tell some truths.
First, after the aggression on Iraq, there is no
United Nations, understood as a useful and diverse
forum based on respect for the rights of all and with
guarantees for the small States. It is experiencing the
worst moment of its nearly 60 years. It languishes, it
gasps for air, it keeps up appearances, but it does not
work. Who handcuffed the United Nations, named by
President Roosevelt? President Bush.
Second, United States troops will have to be
withdrawn from Iraq. Now that the lives of over 1,000
American youths have been uselessly sacrificed to
serve the spurious interests of a clique of cronies and
buddies, and following the deaths of more than 12,000
Iraqis, it is clear that the only way out for the occupier
faced with a people in revolt is to recognize the
impossibility of subduing them and to withdraw. In
spite of the imperial monopoly over information,
peoples always get to the truth. Someday, those
responsible and their accomplices will have to deal
with the consequences of their actions in the face of
history and their own peoples.
Third, for the time being, there will be no valid,
real and useful reform of the United Nations. It would
take the super-Power, which inherited the immense
prerogative of governing an order conceived for a
bipolar world, to relinquish its privileges. And it will
not do so.
33

As of now, we know that the anachronistic
privilege of the veto will remain; that the Security
Council will not be democratized as it should be or
expanded to include third world countries; that the
General Assembly will continue to stand ignored; and
that, at the United Nations, there will be more actions
driven by the interests imposed by the super-Power and
its allies. We, as non-aligned countries, will have to
entrench ourselves in defending the United Nations
Charter, because if we do not it will be redrafted with
the deletion of every trace of such principles as the
sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and the
non-use or the threat of use of force.
Fourth, the powerful collude to divide us. The
130-plus underdeveloped countries must build a
common front for the defence of the sacred interests of
our peoples and of our right to development and peace.
Let us revitalize the Non-Aligned Movement. Let us
strengthen the Group of 77.
Fifth, the modest objectives of the Millennium
Declaration will not be accomplished. We will reach
the fifth anniversary of the Summit in a situation that
has worsened. We sought to halve by 2015 the 1.276
billion human beings in abject poverty that existed in
1990. There would have to be a yearly reduction of
more than 46 million poor people. However, excluding
China, between 1990 and 2000, extreme poverty rose
by 28 million people. Poverty does not decline, it
grows.
We wanted to reduce by half by 2015 the 842
million hungry people in the world. There would have
had to be a yearly reduction of 28 million. However,
there has been a reduction of barely 2.1 million hungry
people per year. At this rate, the goal will be attained
by 2215, two hundred years after what was envisaged,
and only if our species survives the destruction of its
environment.
We proclaimed the aspiration to achieve universal
primary education by 2015. However, more than 120
million children — or 1 in every 5 children of school
age — do not attend primary school. According to the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), at the
current rate, the goal will be achieved after 2100.
We also proposed to reduce by two thirds the
mortality rate in children under the age of five. The
reduction has been symbolic: whereas 86 children died
per 1,000 live births in 1998, the figure is now 82.
Every year, 11 million children continue to die of
diseases that can be prevented or cured, and their
parents rightfully wonder what our meetings are for.
We said that we would pay attention to Africa’s
special needs. However, very little has been done.
African nations do not need foreign advice or models,
but rather financial resources and access to markets
and technologies. Assisting Africa would not be an act
of charity, but an act of justice, a settling of the historic
debt resulting from centuries of exploitation and
pillage.
We committed ourselves to halting and starting to
reverse the AIDS epidemic by 2015. However, in 2003,
it claimed nearly 3 million lives. At this rate, some 36
million people will have died of this disease by 2015.
Sixth, creditor countries and the international
financial agencies will not seek a just and lasting
solution to foreign debt. They prefer to keep us in
debt — in other words, vulnerable. Therefore, even
though we have paid off $4.1 trillion in debt servicing
over the last 13 years, our debt has increased from $1.4
trillion to $2.6 trillion. This means that we have paid
three times what we owed and now our debt is twice as
large.
Seventh, we, the underdeveloped countries, are
the ones that finance the wastefulness and the opulence
of developed countries. While in 2003 they gave us
$68.4 billion in official development assistance (ODA),
we delivered $436 billion to them as payment for the
foreign debt. Who is helping whom?
Eighth, the fight against terrorism can only be
won through cooperation among all nations, with
respect for international law, and not through massive
bombings or pre-emptive wars against dark corners of
the world. We must put an end to hypocrisy and double
standards. Sheltering three Cuban-born terrorists in the
United States is an act complicit with terrorism.
Punishing five young Cuban antiterrorists, together
with their families, is a crime.
Ninth, general and complete disarmament,
including nuclear disarmament, is impossible today. It
is the responsibility of a group of developed countries
that are the ones that sell and buy the most weapons.
However, we must continue to strive for this goal. We
must demand that the over $900 billion set aside every
year for military expenditures be used for
development.
34

Tenth, the financial resources to guarantee the
sustainable development of all peoples on the planet
are available, but what is lacking is the political will of
those who rule the world. A development tax of merely
0.1 per cent on international financial transactions
would generate resources amounting to almost $400
billion a year. The cancellation of the foreign debt
incurred by underdeveloped countries would allow
them to have no less than $436 billion a year available
for their development, money which is currently used
to pay off the constantly-rising debt. If developed
countries complied with their commitment to set aside
0.7 per cent of their gross national product as ODA,
and not 0.2 per cent as they currently do, their
contribution would increase from the current $68.4
billion to $160 billion a year.
Lastly, I want to clearly express Cuba’s profound
conviction that the 6.4 billion human beings on this
planet — who have equal rights according to the
United Nations Charter — urgently require a new order
in which the world is not in suspense, as is the case
now, awaiting the outcome of the elections in a new
Rome, in which only half the voters will participate
and nearly $1.5 billion will be spent.
There is no discouragement in our words; I must
make that clear. We are optimistic, because we are
revolutionaries. We have faith in the struggle of the
peoples, and we are sure that we will achieve a new
world order based on respect for the rights of all — an
order based on solidarity, justice and peace, resulting
from the best of universal culture, not from mediocrity
or brute force.
With regard to Cuba — and neither blockades,
threats, hurricanes, droughts, nor human or natural
force can divert it from its course — I shall say
nothing. On 28 October, for the thirteenth time, the
General Assembly will discuss and vote on a draft
resolution on the blockade against the Cuban people.
Once again, morality and principles will defeat
arrogance and force.
I conclude by recalling the words spoken here 25
years ago by President Fidel Castro:
“The clashing of weapons, the threatening
language and the overbearing behaviour in the
international arena must cease. Enough of the
illusion that the problems of the world can be
solved by nuclear weapons. Bombs may kill the
hungry, the sick and the ignorant; but bombs
cannot kill hunger, disease and ignorance. Nor
can bombs kill the righteous rebellion of the
peoples.”


Two years
ago I had the great satisfaction of personally
witnessing, in this very Hall, Switzerland’s entry into
the United Nations. I will never forget the whole-
hearted welcome that Switzerland received on that
occasion.
Switzerland’s accession to the United Nations
took place at a time when the fight against terrorism
dominated international debate and divergences in
opinion on how to proceed with respect to Iraq were
widening. Dissension arose once again within the
Security Council. That experience showed that any
action taken in the absence of a mandate that is clearly
defined in a Security Council resolution is doomed to
failure. Such actions can only result in differences of
opinion that reduce the effectiveness of the
international community’s efforts and jeopardize
international security.
When all is said and done, however, the Iraq
crisis has made clear that the international community
remains committed to a multilateral system for
maintaining international peace and security, but that
the structures currently in place are no longer
appropriate.
There is now, therefore, a clear need for reform
and for strengthening the means of joint action. The
High-Level Panel appointed by the Secretary-General
to make recommendations for ensuring effective joint
action is a first step on the road to reform. Switzerland
actively supports that initiative.
Thus, this past spring, we invited a group of
experts to discuss the subject of the right of self-
defence, and in that context, the role of the Security
Council. Their conclusion was that it is neither
necessary nor desirable to extend or reinterpret the
right of individual self-defence set out in the Charter.
What we must do is strengthen joint action; that is the
issue on which we must focus.
In this context, prevention is essential. On the one
hand, we must ensure improved living conditions
throughout the world; on the other, multilateral
institutions must respond more rapidly to nascent
crises.
17

A more rapid response does not necessarily mean
military intervention. Switzerland has always held the
view that force must remain an instrument of last
resort. Apart from situations of self-defence, force may
be used only with the approval of the Security Council
and when other methods of persuasion or pressure have
been exhausted.
A more rapid response also means that the
Security Council must fully exercise its primary
responsibility for maintaining international peace and
security, which is conferred upon it by the Charter.
This raises the issue of the legitimacy of action of the
Security Council and, in particular, the question of its
composition. After more than 10 years of deliberation
on that issue, it is time we found a solution. The
composition of the Security Council must better reflect
the changes that have taken place in the international
context since its creation, and developing countries
must have a greater role to play. Greater account must
be taken of the financial and material contributions of
specific Member States.
On the other hand, Switzerland is opposed to the
creation of new seats with the right of veto, because
the right of veto in its current form is undemocratic and
hampers the capacity of the Security Council to act. In
the interests of greater legitimacy, those countries that
are not members of the Security Council should have
more opportunity to participate in the decision-making
process. In particular, it is important to strengthen
mechanisms for consultation with countries directly
involved in situations of tension.
Reforming institutions may be an arduous and
unrewarding task, but it is indispensable for increasing
the efficiency of the United Nations and for promoting
peace. I would like to thank the Secretary-General for
the work that he has already done and encourage him
to continue along the same path.
Over and above institutional aspects, the
commitment of Member States is critical if the United
Nations is to be effective. First of all, if it is to remain
credible, the United Nations and its Member States
must be the unassailable guarantors of international
law and, in particular, international humanitarian law. I
would like to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi
Annan, for having emphasized today the absolute
primacy of the rule of law — a source a strength for
the weak. Switzerland will continue to insist that
respect for the rule of law is the only practical way
forward. In the absence of a political solution to the
conflict in Darfur, for example, civilians have become
the victims of attacks that constitute a serious violation
of international humanitarian law — a violation which
must be punished by the appropriate national and, if
necessary, international, bodies.
For that reason, too, following the adoption of
resolution ES-10/15 on the advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice — which found that the
construction of the separation barrier in the occupied
Palestinian territory by Israel is contrary to
international law — Switzerland accepts, in its
capacity as depositary of the Geneva Conventions, the
mandate to conduct consultations on ways and means
for the parties concerned to achieve greater respect for
international humanitarian law.
If it is to be strong, the United Nations must be
able to rely on those States with the necessary
resources to help it carry out its tasks. All of those
countries, including my own, are called upon to
provide the personnel and materials needed by
peacekeeping missions. The appalling attack on the
United Nations headquarters in Baghdad underscores
the need to give special consideration to the security of
the United Nations and its staff. Fortunately, additional
security measures are now in place. Other measures
must follow. It is our shared duty to ensure that the
Secretary-General has the necessary financial resources
at his disposal.
As I said earlier, prevention will depend on the
fight against poverty. In autumn next year, we plan to
gather together to undertake the first assessment of the
state of progress on the Millennium Development
Goals. We must already admit that our efforts have
been inadequate. Of course, every country has its
budgetary constraints. But we also have a duty to keep
the promises we made at the dawn of the millennium.
President Lula da Silva made this point earlier,
forcefully and with commitment. He recalled our
responsibility to history — which we endorse — to
eliminate poverty while we have the means to do so.
In that context, I welcome the fact that trade
liberalization within the framework of the Doha Round
regained some momentum this summer in Geneva.
Difficult negotiations still lie ahead of us —
negotiations that must seek to meet expectations that
are sometimes contradictory. Switzerland intends to
play a constructive role, and I call on all our partners to
18

commit themselves to ensure the early success of the
development round.
Prevention will require us to both detect and
defuse today the problems of tomorrow. I believe that
our efforts to promote peace must be rapidly fleshed
out in two areas. The first of these is conflict that is
borne of religion. Killing is unacceptable, and it is
especially so if it is carried out for religious reasons.
Yet increasingly frequently, religion is becoming the
only frame of reference for analysing political and
social problems. Such an extreme simplification of
reality runs the risk of heightening tension. The
international community must find a solution, and the
United Nations is the ideal forum in which to do so.
The second area is environmental preservation.
The increasing scarcity of resources is sowing the
seeds of conflict over appropriation and distribution.
Sustainable development must not be allowed to
become an empty concept. Our actions to date within
the context of the United Nations have not been
sufficient to enable us to fulfil our responsibilities
towards future generations. Devoting more time to
seeking agreement on the Kyoto Protocol than the
founding fathers took to draft the Charter of the United
Nations is beneath our dignity.
The United Nations will be judged by its success
in meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century.
The institutional reforms now under way are a step in
the right direction. It is up to us, the Member States,
resolutely to commit ourselves to promote peace and to
make the United Nations the instrument for carrying
out that essential task.


Allow
me at the outset to join previous speakers in
congratulating you, Sir, on your election as President
of the General Assembly at its current session. In light
of the restraints on our time, I shall omit several
acknowledgements and tributes that I should have liked
to make and delve directly into matters of vital
importance to my country, to the region of the Horn of
Africa and, by extension, to all Member States of our
global community.
My Government, of course, recognizes and is
grateful for the vital contributions of the international
community, including the United Nations, to promote
peace in the aftermath of the war that Ethiopia declared
against my country, using a place called Badme as a
pretext for invasion.
The Algiers Peace Agreement, signed by the two
parties in December 2000, was drafted and brokered by
the United States, the European Union, the African
Union and Algeria, among others. Furthermore, the
international community has spent more than $700
million to date to maintain the peacekeeping force.
More than 37 countries have contributed military
personnel, which are involved in UNMEE in various
capacities. We are indeed grateful for those
contributions.
But, while we applaud those valuable
contributions, we are duty-bound to express, with equal
candour, our regret and dismay at the lack of resolute
action by the international community at this critical
time, when the entire process is on the brink of
collapse. Had the international community respected its
obligations and seen the process through with the
requisite seriousness, the border would have been
demarcated long ago. Today could have been an
auspicious moment for our peoples to celebrate, from
this rostrum, the resounding success of the United
Nations peacekeeping effort. Instead, the dark clouds
of war are once again gathering over my country
because of Ethiopia’s intransigence and the
acquiescence of major Powers as concerns Ethiopia’s
violations of international law.
Allow me to recall some of the most salient tenets
of the Algiers Peace Agreement (A/55/686, annex).
First, regarding the establishment and powers of
the Arbitration Commission, article 4.2 of the
Agreement states:
“The parties agree that a neutral Boundary
Commission composed of five members shall be
established with a mandate to delimit and
demarcate the colonial treaty boundary based on
pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908)
and applicable international law. The
Commission shall not have the power to make
decisions ex aequo et bono.”
Secondly, as concerns the final and binding
nature of the decision, article 4.15 states:
11

“The parties agree that the delimitation and
demarcation determinations of the Commission
shall be final and binding. Each party shall
respect the border so determined, as well as the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other
party.”
Thirdly, regarding punitive measures that should
be taken against the violating party, paragraph 14 of
the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (S/2000/601,
annex) states:
“[The] OAU and the United Nations commit
themselves to guarantee the respect for this
commitment of the two parties until the
determination of the common border … This
guarantee shall be comprised of
a) Measures to be taken by the
international community should one or both
of the parties violate this commitment,
including appropriate measures to be taken
under Chapter VII of the Charter of the
United Nations by the United Nations
Security Council.”
It has been more than two years now since the
Boundary Commission announced its decision on the
basis of the Algiers Peace Agreement. That legal
decision was reached after 15 months of litigation,
following the exchange of numerous memorandums
and a two-week verbal hearing. The decision is final
and binding in accordance with the aforementioned
Peace Agreement. Furthermore, the decision is based
on the fundamental African principle of the
inviolability of inherited colonial boundaries, which
are not of our making but which we can only respect
unless we wish to open the Pandora’s box of an endless
cycle of bloody border conflicts.
My Government has accepted in good faith the
Boundary Commission’s decision, not because it has
won in the litigation, but because we firmly believe
that the only way to secure an enduring peace is
through respect of the rule of law and the integrity of
the arbitration decision. That is why my Government
has been cooperating, and continues to cooperate, fully
and unreservedly with the Boundary Commission in all
its delimitation decisions and demarcation instructions.
Ethiopia, on the other hand, has categorically
rejected the decision of the Boundary Commission. In
a letter to the Security Council on 19 September last
year, the Ethiopian Prime Minister declared that the
work of the Commission was “in terminal crisis”. The
Prime Minister dismissed the decision of the Boundary
Commission as totally illegal, unjust and irresponsible,
and requested the Security Council to set up an
alternative mechanism to demarcate the contested parts
of the boundary.
Ethiopia, of course, has no reason whatsoever to
reject the Boundary Commission decision. Apart from
its treaty obligations, the fact is that Ethiopia has won,
by its own admission, extra territories that never
belonged to it. Those were the words of the Prime
Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Council of
Ministers on 13 April 2002, when the Boundary
Commission announced its decision.
Ethiopia’s belated and calculated rejection of the
decision was an afterthought. It was tentative and
cautious at first, but gained boldness and audacity
when it realized that it could do so with impunity. The
Prime Minister’s letter informing the Security Council
that Ethiopia totally rejected the decision of the
Boundary Commission was written 16 full months after
the decision was rendered. In a sense, Ethiopia’s
rejection has more to do with the conduct of the
international community rather than any intrinsic
problem of the decision itself.
Critical and encouraging factors in Ethiopia’s
rejection were the sympathetic dispositions towards it
and the “winks and nods” of certain countries and
some foreign missions in Ethiopia.
Ethiopia’s current arguments and excuses on the
need to factor in human and physical geography and
bogus concerns as to population dislocation or
separation of villages and homes are so fallacious as to
not even merit discussion. The legal basis for
delimiting the boundary is unequivocal, and Ethiopia
cannot inject new elements after the fact. Furthermore,
boundaries in Africa, and for that matter elsewhere in
the world, are not always carved out of natural rivers
and ravines to exclude contiguous villages lying on
either side of the boundary between two countries.
In the case of the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary, in
1998 Ethiopia expelled 14,500 Eritreans who had
inhabited 39 villages on the eastern part of the Badme
line since the 1920s. Those people have spent the last
several years in makeshift camps in western Eritrea.
An additional 58,000 Eritreans remain displaced
because Ethiopia continues to occupy our sovereign
12

territories. All in all, more than 90,000 Eritreans, and
Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, were expelled from
Ethiopia in 1998 because the Ethiopian Prime Minister
declared that “Ethiopia has every right to expel any
foreign citizen if it does not like the colour of their
eyes”. How can Ethiopia now invoke the possible
dislocation of a few thousand settlers to prevent
demarcation of the boundary and jeopardize regional
peace?
In spite of Ethiopia’s violations of the Peace
Agreements, major Powers within the international
community have not taken critical steps to persuade
Ethiopia to uphold the rule of law and abide by its
treaty obligations. On the contrary, Ethiopia is
continuing to obtain massive humanitarian, economic
and military support from major Powers. Full-fledged
economic sanctions may not have been necessary, but
the debt cancellation, budgetary support and other
substantial injections of economic and humanitarian
assistance extended to Ethiopia have not been linked to
a positive performance in the peace process. As far as
Eritrea is concerned, therefore, the problem is not
Ethiopia’s bad-faith conduct in the border dispute, but
international silence and acquiescence with regard to
its violations, which has, in turn, encouraged its
intransigence.
It is regrettable that the United Nations
Secretariat and some Powers have introduced — and
continue to dwell on — tangential issues, instead of
taking concrete action to push the peace process
forward. Such notions are not only extraneous to the
Algiers Peace Agreement, but, if they were to become
operational, would actually subvert and derail the
peace process and significantly contribute to tension
and conflict. Here, I am referring to the related issues
of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the
“dialogue” to renegotiate the final and binding decision
of the Boundary Commission.
I would like to stress that the appointment of the
Special Envoy occurred only a few weeks after
Ethiopia had formally and officially rejected the
Boundary Commission decision requesting the Security
Council to create a new mechanism. While my
Government did not see any benefit or rationale for
that course of action, it did not reject the proposal
outright. We sought unambiguous clarifications with
regard to the mandate and functions of the Special
Envoy through various communications, emphasizing
that we could not possibly contemplate renegotiation of
the decision in any form. Unfortunately, our efforts did
not bear fruit, and the lack of clarity of the responses
we received only reinforced our original suspicions.
My Government has therefore informed the Secretary-
General that it considers that the issue of the Special
Envoy — which has eclipsed the key issue for almost a
year now — to be a closed chapter and appealed to the
Secretary-General to refocus international attention on
Ethiopia’s violations of the Algiers Peace Agreement
and the rule of law.
In the same vein, the issue of bilateral dialogue
with Ethiopia should be viewed and can be understood
only in its proper perspective. Eritrea has no problem
with the idea of fully normalizing its relations with
Ethiopia and reviving good-neighbourly relations. We
are neighbours, destined to live together and in
harmony. But we cannot possibly put the cart before
the horse and discuss economic or security issues, or
other issues relating to cooperation, while Ethiopia is
forcibly occupying our land in blatant breach of the
Algiers Peace Agreement and the decision of the
Boundary Commission. Indeed, Eritrea will not need
the good offices of an intermediary in order to resume
normal bilateral ties with Ethiopia once the critical
border issue is resolved legally and peacefully. I must
stress that the border issue cannot be the subject of
sterile dialogue such as that sought by Ethiopia. That is
legally untenable and practically impossible.
The cost of inaction by the international
community to regional peace and stability will be
enormous, and my Government sincerely hopes that the
indifference that we have witnessed over the past two
years will be rectified in time. Eritrea has shown
maximum patience and restraint, even though its
sovereign territories remain occupied by force. But
patience has a limit — particularly given that the
humanitarian burden is of great importance and that the
situation in that regard has been unsustainable for a
long time. Indeed, over 60,000 of our citizens continue
to live in makeshift camps, unable to return to their
home villages.
In his address to the General Assembly on
21 September 2004, the Secretary-General made a
passionate appeal for respect for the rule of law at
home and abroad. The people and the Government of
Eritrea would like to thank him for that statement,
which they subscribe to in its entirety and endorse
without reservation. Eritreans continue to be victims of
the violation of the rule of law as a result of Ethiopia’s
13

rejection, with impunity, of the final and binding
decision of an arbitration commission sanctioned by
the United Nations and other organizations, as well as
by other States.
Eritreans also fully agree that the rule of law
begins at home, including at the United Nations. It
must not be forgotten that the implementation of the
Commission’s decision was guaranteed by a treaty
obligation signed by the Secretary-General on behalf of
the United Nations. It is therefore essential to note that
any stalemate in the demarcation process is a stalemate
not between Eritrea, which has accepted the decision
without any reservations or conditions, and Ethiopia,
which has rejected it, but between Ethiopia and the
United Nations, which has guaranteed implementation
and provided for punitive action, under Chapter VII of
the Charter, against the party that refuses to implement
the Commission’s decision.
The United Nations has the duty of enforcing the
rule of law. This is a violation of the rule of law and
demonstrates the collective failure of the United
Nations to uphold the law and to instil respect for it in
our fellow men and women. Ethiopia cannot be above
the law; Eritrea should not be denied its protection, and
the United Nations must employ its enforcement
capacity for the rule of law by fulfilling its treaty
obligations.
Before concluding, I would like to outline briefly
the views of my Government on other regional
problems. My Government warmly welcomes the
progress made over the past few months in promoting
reconciliation and lasting peace in Somalia. Although
we are handicapped by the war imposed on us by
Ethiopia, we have nonetheless continued to make
modest contributions to a durable and peaceful
resolution of Somalia’s internal problem. Our approach
has always hinged on supporting the Somalis as they
try to find their own solutions and on preventing the
fragmentation and Balkanization of Somalia, which
have been driven by external, rather than internal,
tendencies.
The magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in the
Sudan is too well known to merit explanation here. But
as the international community focuses on what is
currently taking place in Darfur, what is often missed
is the larger picture of regional destabilization and
incalculable human suffering that the fundamentalist
extremist regime has been fomenting for almost
15 years. Furthermore, the ramifications of the
National Islamic Front’s policies, which are based on
extremist ideology, have not been confined to the
Sudan but have affected several neighbouring
countries, including my country. It is therefore
essential that major Powers in the international
community see the problem for what it is and assess it
on the basis of what it portends.
In conclusion, I would like to restate the position
of my Government on the relevant ongoing debate
about the reform of the United Nations system. It is
clear to us, as a matter that has been reinforced by our
recent experience, that, despite many achievements,
there are areas of critical shortfall that require reform
and restructuring. We also believe that parameters and
considerations that were relevant when the United
Nations was established in the immediate aftermath of
the Second World War need to be revisited and
adjusted, in accordance with contemporary realities.
Furthermore, representation in the Security Council
must satisfy the criteria of reasonable regional
representation and equity, as well as of the equality of
sovereign nations, as enshrined in the Charter.


I would like to congratulate
you, Sir, the Foreign Minister of Gabon, upon your
assumption of the presidency of the General Assembly
and to wish you much success.
The United Nations was established out of the
devastation of the Second World War in order to build
a world of unity and of peace. Today, 60 years after the
Organization came into being, we must ask ourselves:
What are we united for and what are we united against?
Are we united for peace and security? Are we united
for fairness and justice? Are we united against terror?
Are we united against tyranny?
Or are we, sadly, united only in cynical and
immoral majority votes that make a mockery of the
noble ideals on which this body was founded?
Tomorrow is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish
calendar, when all Jews stand before God to account
for their actions. It is an appropriate time for all
19

nations, separately and together, to engage in such an
accounting.
I sense a change in the world. In the face of the
global campaign of terror which has left no country
free of its devastating impact, the world is beginning to
realize what we in Israel have long known: that
terrorism is a challenge to humanity as a whole, not
just to individual countries; that the response to that
global threat must also be global if it is to be effective;
that the threat of terrorism anywhere is a threat to
freedom everywhere; that fighting terror is crucial to
our ability to bring peace.
There was a time when the problems of terror,
Islamic fundamentalism and Iranian nuclear ambition
were seen as local problems — Israel’s problems —
not challenges which threatened the community of
nations as a whole. Today, however, our community of
nations is more united than ever in the battle against
terrorism, whose sole objective is to undermine
everything that we seek to build: peace, stability,
prosperity and opportunity for all.
Today we are also more united than ever in
opposition to the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The international community now realizes
that Iran — with missiles that can reach London, Paris,
Berlin and southern Russia — poses a threat not only
to the security of Israel, but to the security and stability
of the whole world. Indeed, Iran has replaced Saddam
Hussein as the world’s number-one exporter of terror,
hate and instability.
The international community now also realizes,
as reflected in Security Council resolution 1559
(2004), that Syria’s occupation of Lebanon and its
support for Palestinian terror must end if our collective
aspirations are to be fulfilled.
And the international community now realizes
that terror and tyranny are the twin enemies of the
individual freedoms and human rights — including the
right to life itself — which define our humanity.
Today, the community of nations knows that
securing freedom and democracy for all the peoples of the
world must be our collective goal. The pictures of human
flesh torn apart by the terrorists, from New York to
Beslan — and just yesterday, once again, in Jerusalem
— are waking us up to the challenge we face.
In that spirit of unity, and in the name of all those
in the world who suffer from terror and tyranny, I call
on the Assembly to refocus its aspirations and its
priorities. I call on the Assembly to end its obsession
with Israel and to ensure that United Nations resources
are allocated more equally and more effectively. Our
United Nations must provide solutions to the global
challenges of hunger and poverty, of disease and
weapons proliferation, of drug trafficking and
sustainable development. We must not let the
Palestinian desire to vilify Israel distract our global
community from the obligation to address the needs of
all peoples.
I call on the Assembly to address head-on the
active involvement of Iran and Syria in terrorism and
Syria’s continued occupation of Lebanon. There can be
no place in the community of nations for those who
promote the killing of children. I call on the Assembly
to promote practical measures to help nations cut off
all financial and political lifelines of terror.
I call on the Assembly to address the growth of
anti-Semitism and other forms of racism and
intolerance. I urge you, Mr. President, and the
Secretary-General, to convene a special session of the
Assembly on that crucial matter. We all share the
responsibility to educate our children to understanding
and tolerance rather than to hatred and incitement.
We must build a united and global coalition to
fight terrorism, racism and anti-Semitism. We must
build a united front against the cold-blooded murderers
of our children. In that battle, there is no middle
ground. There is no room for explanations or excuses.
There are no mitigating circumstances. Declarations
and condemnations are very important, but they are not
enough. Every nation, every Government, every leader
has the responsibility to act. Those who choose instead
to support and sponsor terror must be isolated and held
to account for their crimes.
When I speak of terror and its dangers to life and
freedom, I speak from bitter personal experience. My
own home town of Beersheva suffered a double suicide
bombing just three weeks ago. Sixteen innocent people
were killed when their commuter buses were blown up.
In the middle of an important meeting with visiting
officials, I rushed to call my mother and brother to
check that they were alive. Hamas, which operates
freely from Palestinian territory and receives support
and safe haven from the regimes in Damascus and
Tehran, proudly claimed responsibility for that horrific
attack.
20

Again yesterday, as I was meeting with the
Secretary-General to discuss peace in the Middle East,
I was passed a note informing me of a suicide atrocity,
in which two more Israelis were blown to pieces by a
Palestinian terrorist. And this morning, once again, yet
more Palestinian murderers took the lives of three
young Israelis in an attack on Morag.
In the last year alone, 150 Israelis have been
killed and thousands more injured in more than 40
separate suicide bombings and other cold-blooded
attacks. More than 200 additional suicide-bombing
attempts were blocked by our defensive measures.
No Israeli mother is free of the fear that her child
may be lost. No Israeli child is immune to the
terrorists’ plans. In the name of God above and all
humanity here on Earth, this killing must stop.
Palestinian terrorism is the key reason that the
dream of peace in the Middle East has not yet become
a reality. Combating this terror is crucial to the
prospects for peace in our region. No peace initiative
can survive if terrorists continue to enjoy a free hand to
undermine it.
The road map recognizes this, calling, in phase
one, for sustained Palestinian action against terror, the
dismantling of terrorist organizations and the end of
incitement in schools and the media. Sadly, the current
Palestinian leadership has refused to fulfil those
fundamental obligations, preferring to blame Israel for
all its failures. The Palestinian side spends more energy
fighting Israel here at the United Nations than it does
fighting the terrorists in its own territory.
In the post-11-September world, this is not
acceptable. The Palestinians are not exempt from the
imperatives of the global war on terror. On the
contrary, it is in their clear interest to join it. To stand
up against Hamas and Islamic Jihad is to stand up for
Palestinian rights, not against them.
We urge the international community to recognize
this reality and help the voices of reform and
moderation within Palestinian society to emerge. The
future of the Palestinian people will be determined by
the choices that the Palestinians and their leadership
make on the ground. The solutions — for the
Palestinians and Israelis as one — lie in Gaza and
Ramallah, not in The Hague or New York.
Israel is acting in both the diplomatic and the
security arenas to deal with the consequences of this
chronic failure of the Palestinian leadership. On the
diplomatic front, Israel accepted the road map in May
2003, and we remain committed to its realization. At
this time, however, we have no responsible Palestinian
partner ready to join us in this effort. Israel is now
planning to implement the disengagement plan as a
means of enhancing security and establishing a new,
more promising platform for a return to negotiations.
We are in constant contact with the donor community
and the World Bank in a joint effort to rebuild Gaza in
the wake of Israel’s withdrawal.
On the security front, Israel is building a security
fence to stop the unchecked wave of Palestinian
attacks. After 20,000 terrorist attacks, we deserve to
protect our people. No other country would act
otherwise after 20, let alone 20,000, terrorist attacks.
The fence does not take lives. It saves them. Where
there is a fence, there is no terror. Where there is no
fence, there is terror. The modified route of the fence
reflects the necessary balance between the security of
our citizens and the welfare of the Palestinian
population, as called for by Israel’s Supreme Court.
Most important, the fence is reversible. The lives taken
by terror are irreversible. By helping take terrorism out
of the equation, the fence contributes to the prospect of
a return to negotiations and the realization of the road
map’s vision of peace.
I call on the Assembly to acknowledge this truth
and to reject the continued Palestinian effort to have
delegations address Israel’s response to terrorism,
instead of addressing the terrorism itself.
Ultimately, we need real contact and dialogue,
based on mutual respect for the humanity of the other
if we are to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. The
Government of Israel is ready for such contact. We are
ready to talk to any leadership — from Syria, Lebanon
or the Palestinians — that comes to the table without
terror and with the genuine intention of finding
mutually acceptable solutions to our differences.
Tomorrow, Yom Kippur, is a day of prayer,
fasting and soul-searching for the Jews. In Beersheva,
in a synagogue named after my father, I will be praying
together with those who have recently buried their
murdered children. I will pray that our collective
aspiration for life and freedom will prevail over the
terrorists and those who sponsor them. I will pray that
God will deliver peace on earth, for all humanity. And
I will pray that mankind can unite — through the
21

United Nations — to help make this dream become a
reality.
And I would like to say in Hebrew, Happy New
Year.


I bring to this
gathering a warm greeting from the people of the
Republic of Vanuatu.
Mr. President, at the outset, I take this
opportunity to congratulate you on your assumption of
the presidency of the General Assembly at its fifty-
ninth session. I also take this occasion to acknowledge
with deep gratitude the contributions of your
predecessor, who so competently steered the work of
the fifty-eighth session to its conclusion.
Here, I must also acknowledge the outstanding
role of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has been
resolute in his efforts to revitalize the Organization’s
ability to address global concerns. My delegation
reaffirms its support for Mr. Annan’s profound and
meticulous leadership of the United Nations.
I also take this opportunity to convey the
condolences of my Government and the people of
Vanuatu to the people of the Caribbean nations, in
particular Haiti, for the loss of so many lives and for
the extensive damage caused by the destructive forces
of nature that recently swept through the region. We
offer them our moral support and pray that the affected
peoples will soon recover and that the devastated areas
of their nations will be swiftly rehabilitated and rebuilt.
Those inevitable natural calamities demonstrate once
more the extreme and particular vulnerability of island
States, which seriously affects national economies.
Every year, from this rostrum, we reaffirm our
faith and confidence in upholding the purposes and
principles of the Charter. We entered the new
millennium with much anticipation and hope of
creating a just and better world for all our citizens.
However, global insecurity and the varying dimensions
of serious conflict have created a frightening situation.
It is to be expected that the world will plunge into
further turmoil unless the role of the United Nations —
the only truly global body — is reinvigorated and
recovers its legitimate responsibility of addressing the
causes of conflict and maintaining peace and security. I
come to the Assembly with some trepidation, as I see
our world spiralling out of control unless its Members
uphold the universality of the United Nations decision-
making process in addressing global concerns.
The world is at a crossroads and we meet here at
a critical juncture. Around us, civil strife, wars,
poverty, disease, famine, drought, natural disasters,
terrorism, environmental degradation, depletion of land
and marine resources and other phenomena are
ravaging the world. The displacement of peoples from
their natural habitats and the sacrilege of human
suffering in many parts of the world demonstrate that
25

unless immediate remedial strategies are implemented,
the global situation will continue to deteriorate.
Moreover, the emergence of conflict in areas we
once believed stable, the deterioration of law and order
and the senseless killing of innocent peoples are
painful reminders that we need to rethink our policies
and decisions. Globalization has brought with it both
opportunities and challenges, but for the small island
States the challenges are much more ominous. Those
are the realities.
Those negative developments lead me to
conclude that the United Nations is indispensable and
that we all need to work as friends and equal partners.
Globalization has brought nations together. We are
interlinked and interdependent. That demands global
cooperation and governance from all responsible
Members of the Organization. Understandably, there
are the vested interests of the powerful, but that only
necessitates genuine cooperation and goodwill to
achieve convergence of those interests. The United
Nations role in that regard must remain fundamental in
order to ensure compatibility with the international
legal framework. Maverick policies and decisions will
only create further divisions and hostility.
With that in mind, I believe there is now
consensus on introducing far-reaching reforms that
make the United Nations relevant for all its Members,
with the fundamental objective of preserving
international peace, security and stability.
My Government fully supports efforts to reform
the United Nations system in order to ensure a stronger
and more effective Organization. On that note, my
delegation endorses the view of other delegations on
the need to review the membership of the Security
Council so that it will better reflect geographical
distribution and the underrepresented groups of
Member countries of the United Nations, without
affecting the authority of the Council.
I hope all the rhetoric that has come before the
Assembly can be translated into concrete and practical
action. We must be resolute in our collective desire to
work together as sovereign nations in addressing the
world’s problems through multilateral institutions. The
blueprint for international cooperation has been
established, but reforming certain structures in the
United Nations system must be seen as a prerequisite if
we are serious about moving forward. The Achilles
heel of the current structure is the imbalance of power
in the United Nations system. It has become so chronic
that it has weakened the multilateral focus,
cohesiveness and internationalism of the United
Nations.
The principles of democratization and good
governance so actively advocated and championed by
some Members must be reflected in the reorganization
and decision-making process of the United Nations
system.
It is in this regard that Vanuatu supports the
review of the permanent membership of the Security
Council in order to include Japan and one
representative each from the African continent, the
Middle East and the group of small developing
countries. A more representative Council will bring
about openness and transparency, create confidence
and ameliorate understanding and cooperation. A
restructuring of the membership of the Security
Council is long overdue. Diversity is essential there.
My Government looks forward to the report of
the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Threats.
Although the fight against terrorism takes centre
stage, it must not overshadow the socio-economic
development agenda and other serious security
concerns affecting the developing world, and in
particular small island States. Resources will inevitably
be diverted towards combating terrorism in all its
facets, but judicious decisions need to be taken. It is
against that background that our delegation wishes to
associate itself with statements made by other
delegations on the imperativeness of supporting the
development constraints of developing nations, and in
particular the concerns of the small island States on
vulnerability.
At the Millennium Summit leaders adopted the
eight Millennium Development Goals, with targets to
be achieved by 2015. Although commitments have
been made, the lethargic performance of many
countries, including Vanuatu, demonstrate the need for
more international support in assisting countries to
meet those targets.
The global economic situation today
discriminates against many developing economies.
Unfair trading practices and the imposition of intrusive
policies on national economies — including that of
Vanuatu — affect those economies by opening them up
to unfavourable conditions that only favour stronger
nations. The post-Cancún period poses extreme
challenges to the economic survival and socio-
26

economic stability of many small developing nations
like Vanuatu.
My Government’s initial focus is on the social
sector, namely, on health and education. The
Government’s prioritized action agenda, which was
launched last year in consultation with our
development partners, is the catalyst for Vanuatu’s
medium- to long-term strategic planning. This
development policy framework is consistent with
achieving the targets of the Millennium Development
Goals and emphasizes the need to empower our rural
population through infrastructure- and capacity-
building initiatives. We appeal to our development
partners to adequately assist us in its implementation.
On that note, my delegation wishes to express its
gratitude to the United States of America for granting
Vanuatu eligibility to access development funding from
the Millennium Challenge Account.
The primary responsibility for development lies
with a State itself. Yet, external influences and
conditional aid have not adequately corresponded with
Vanuatu’s development priorities and achievements.
The pretext for meting out foreign advice conditioned
with development assistance has been to improve
governance and other sectors considered vital in
establishing a strong economy. In Vanuatu’s case that
line of argument has not produced tangible results,
with restricted progress being reflected in our
continuous struggle with reforms that are more or less
dictated by external forces.
Both the recipient and the external assistance
must be balanced and sensitive to national interests.
Too often, that normal reaction is misunderstood by
some of our development partners. From Vanuatu’s
perspective, externally driven reforms must be
buttressed by an equal partnership that respects local
tradition, culture and the rights of all citizens without
disturbing the essential uniting mechanisms of society
that have successfully held us together over time. An
exploitative agenda can only erode and dismantle those
ingrained mechanisms, leaving us vulnerable to the
rapid changes affecting all of us today. Vanuatu
embraces democracy and the concepts of governance
and transparency, but they must be tailored to suit the
traditional system without affecting the relevance and
significance of those far-reaching principles.
In recent times, the history of the Organization
has been characterized by indecision, which blemishes
the record of the United Nations. I speak about the
longstanding issue of self-determination, and in
particular the case of West Papua, and I do so while
being cognizant of the Charter and while espousing the
principles that continue to guide the Organization’s
efforts in the process of self-determination. The United
Nations must be consistent in its decisions for the
recognition and respect of the fundamental rights to
self-determination for the people of West Papua. The
truth surrounding the so-called Act of Free Choice
must be exposed to the Melanesian sisters and brothers
of West Papua and the rest of the international
community. Saddest of all is General Assembly
resolution 2504 (XXIV) of 1969, concerning West
Papua. How can the United Nations continue to ignore
the cries of over 3 million people demanding justice?
As world leaders, we have time and again expressed
serious concerns and dissatisfaction about the fact that
certain decisions and actions by the United Nations or
its bodies were not consistent with the purposes and
intentions of the Charter. However, in the case of West
Papua, absolutely nothing has been done to rectify the
gross violation of internationally accepted practice. It
is therefore our joint responsibility to address this grey
area of history.
The continuing disputes and concerns raised with
regard to the legality of United Nations-endorsed
instruments that have been concluded throughout the
years — such as the New York Agreement of 1962, to
govern the United Nations administration of the so-
called Act of Free Choice in West Papua — is a clear
example challenging the integrity and validity of
United Nations resolutions at that time. In our opinion,
the United Nations-conducted exercises were a total
farce conditioned only to suit the geopolitical climate
of that period. The United Nations cannot, and must
not, continue to turn a blind eye to its own past
failures. It is morally, politically and legally wrong to
do so. The Netherlands in particular, which was the
former colonial authority, should also recognize that it
should shoulder some responsibility in helping to
resolve the unfortunate situation of West Papua in a
peaceful and transparent manner. Why is no one
accountable for those unjust decisions affecting the
lives of millions of people today?
Vanuatu therefore calls for the establishment of a
special commission of inquiry to review the United
Nations conduct in relation to the 1969 Act. We also
call for the United Nations to send a fact-finding
mission to examine the situation in West Papua with
regard to human rights abuses and other related issues.
And we call for the reinscription of West Papua on the
27

list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Those are
critically challenging responsibilities.
On a final matter, my delegation strongly
reaffirms its support for resolution 2758 (XXVI),
which was adopted during the twenty-sixth session, in
1971, and which recognized the legal and political
representation of the People’s Republic of China as a
Member of the United Nations. Vanuatu again
reiterates its unwavering support for one China and
urges all members of the United Nations to work in the
interests of world peace and stability in the Asia-
Pacific region.
In conclusion, I must bring to the attention of the
Assembly another priority issue that is of grave
importance to my Government and nation. I would
once again like to raise the matter of the relocation of
the Pacific Operations Centre of the Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
from Vanuatu to another location. My Government was
not properly consulted in that regard, and requests that
the decision to relocate the Centre from Vanuatu be
reconsidered. If the Centre’s relevance in the region is
being questioned, then my Government would propose
that a proper review be carried out with a view to
restructuring the ESCAP office in order to relocate the
Pacific Operations Centre to Bangkok. Programmes
and activities under ESCAP responsibility may be
better coordinated through the United Nations
Development Programme activities in the region.
I hope that wisdom will prevail as the debate
continues on our future destiny. Despite all our
differences and diversity, human security for all is our
main goal. That should remain the focus of the United
Nations agenda. The cardinal question is whether
Members will allow the United Nations to undertake
serious reforms in meeting the challenges ahead. The
future remains in our hands.


I am pleased
to welcome and congratulate you, Sir, and the Republic
of Gabon through you, for allowing us to share your
experience and expertise on the occasion of the fifty-
ninth session of the General Assembly. I must convey
to Mr. Julian Hunte, Foreign Minister of Saint Lucia,
my country’s gratitude for his hard work and
memorable contribution to this Organization over the
past year.
The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis
reaffirms its strong support for and commitment to the
praiseworthy, attainable Millennium Development
Goals. Their stated objectives are fundamental and
have long been incorporated into my country’s national
human development agenda.
For decades, before the Millennium Development
Goals were agreed upon, Saint Kitts and Nevis had
instituted compulsory primary and secondary
education, which may explain our achievement of a
literacy rate of 97.8 per cent. We in the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM) are very proud of our
achievements in the field of education. We owe much
of that success to our coherent system of education and
also to the University of the West Indies, whose
academic credentials continue to amaze and evolve to
meet the needs of our people. We invite fellow United
Nations Member States to explore that resource in the
Caribbean so their citizens can pursue higher education
in that great institution of learning and in the most
peaceful and pristine of multicultural settings.
It is easy to become excited when I speak of our
efforts in addressing the issue of women in
development, but we will not let down our guard. In
Saint Kitts and Nevis, we have recognized and
benefited from gender equality and the empowerment
of women. It may be recalled that Saint Kitts and Nevis
was among the first in this hemisphere to create a
Ministry Of Women’s Affairs.
Equally important to the Government of Saint
Kitts and Nevis is winning the war against poverty. We
remain steadfast in our efforts to eliminate poverty,
which is not simply a noble ideal. It is a practical,
achievable objective and, by God, it is the right thing
to do. In Saint Kitts and Nevis, in the last seven years,
we have endured social and economic dislocations in
the wake of several catastrophic natural disasters, 9/11
and the downturns in the global economy. Nonetheless,
with due care and attention to prudent fiscal and
monetary management, we are investing in the socio-
economic development of our country and continue to
place people first in all that we do.
My Government has invested greatly in our
national health system, supported by the construction
of a modern hospital and the professional development
of health care workers. We believe that this will
improve the quality of and access to health care for
nationals and visitors alike. Our continued efforts to
build a healthy nation are consistent with our resolve to
reduce child mortality and improve maternal health.
Our capital project investments have improved
the existing distribution networks to satisfy demand
and to better extend service coverage for potable water
throughout the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Our
road improvement and maintenance programmes have
resurfaced miles of road and improved drainage
throughout the twin island Federation. The
improvement of the tourism product has generated
several new jobs consistent with my Government’s
people-focused agenda. It has allowed us to depend
14

less on an agriculture-based economy, which continues
to suffer from Government subsidies offered to farmers
in large countries. Such subsidies make it more
difficult for small economies like mine to compete.
Our capacity to compete is further undermined by the
recent unilateral decision of the European Union to
reduce the price of sugar by more than 30 per cent.
Despite these challenges, we continue to press on,
mindful of the need to preserve the environment. Saint
Kitts and Nevis are two beautiful islands faced with the
geographic reality of being located in the hurricane
corridor. We witness the cost of beach and coastal
erosion resulting from rising sea levels and hurricanes.
Integrating environmentally sustainable policies into
our development agenda has been a real challenge.
However, our determination to protect and preserve the
islands’ patrimony by adopting environmentally
friendly programmes is imperative.
At this juncture, I need to emphasize the current
situation facing small island developing States. All
small island developing States lack the economy of
scale to overcome their vulnerabilities on their own.
We are extremely vulnerable unless we form
geographical partnerships, as CARICOM has done.
That, however, does not exempt us from the
vulnerabilities that we face every day. Geographical
partnership does allow for a quick response in the
event of adversity.
My delegation urges the international community
to accept the concept of vulnerability, leading to a
vulnerability index that can be appropriately applied to
small island developing States. Grenada’s devastation
within three hours of being struck by hurricane Ivan
dramatizes for us how a generation of development
progress can be wiped out in a small vulnerable nation.
There is a pressing need for a global development fund
to assist small island developing States in recovery
following national disasters.
Pragmatic and productive partnerships are the
most effective vehicle available to the international
community to tackle the multitude of problems we
face. We speak of important issues, such as democracy,
globalization, terrorism, poverty eradication, human
development and the spread of infectious disease, as if
they were completely disconnected. The goal of human
development on any scale is best achieved by
recognizing the interconnectedness of our lives, our
economies and our policies. That imposes an obligation
to develop common strategies, partnerships and policy
approaches that accept and address the intrinsic
linkages among the problems facing nation States.
I submit that the Pan-Caribbean Partnership
Against HIV/AIDS is the first and only regional
mechanism created to deal with the pandemic in a
multinational way. Our regional cooperation has led to
reductions in the cost of antiretroviral drugs from
$20,000 per person per year to $200 per patient per
year. We have also been successful in negotiating
reduced prices for other important pharmaceutical
drugs. That experience speaks to the value of
partnership and cooperation. We believe that networks
are the most effective means of problem solving. We
praise the efforts of the Global Fund and the United
Nations for their work in mobilizing additional
resources to treat people living with HIV/AIDS and to
fight the spread of the disease.
The idea of fighting HIV/AIDS only through
faith simplifies the human condition and suggests a
misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the
disease. My Government insists that a pragmatic policy
approach to fighting the spread of HIV/AIDS is as
fundamental to good governance as is the holding of
free and fair elections. Good governance means
Governments listening to and caring for their citizens.
Good governance implies that leaders must lead with
moral courage and take bold and sometimes
controversial steps in the public interests.
Good governance means placing the United
Nations at the centre of our international interaction, in
accordance with and in full respect for the Charter.
Good governance requires respect for every country’s
right to choose its own course, consistent with its own
laws and the will of its people. Good governance is not
simply about whether we ostracize a country if its
policies run counter to our national agenda. It should
be about creating better understanding, cooperation and
partnership and building bridges of friendship. Good
governance suggests to us in Saint Kitts and Nevis that
Governments abide by and commit themselves to
internationally recognized standards and principles and
do not discard them when it becomes expedient. Good
governance entails holding everyone to the same
standard and not raising the bar for some countries and
lowering it for others.
Good governance should propel us to recognize
the fact that nearly 23 million people in the Republic of
15

China on Taiwan are essentially in a diplomatic black
hole, alienated from our international discourse. Good
governance requires all peace-loving nations to urge
both sides of the Taiwan Straits not only to commit to,
but also to engage in constructive dialogue and
preventive diplomacy. Good governance behooves us
to support the hard work of the leaders and people of
the Republic of China on Taiwan to comply with and
work within the framework of international law. Good
governance says to us in Saint Kitts and Nevis that a
people committed to the rule of law and democracy and
willing to invest in human development at home and
abroad should never be excluded from the fraternity of
nations.
In addition, CARICOM takes great pride in our
parliamentary system of Government and our solid
democracies from a centuries-old tradition. Our history
teaches us that good governance and human
development are indivisible. Where representative
democracy, democratic institution-building, freedom of
expression and the protection of human rights have not
flourished, human development has suffered. Where
Governments have failed to respect the will of the
people, human development has faltered. Although
CARICOM faces great limitations and challenges
owing to the absence of natural and financial resources,
we have managed to build credible democratic
institutions, a reliable judicial system and lasting
democracies in which the transition from incumbent
Governments to opposition parties passes without
incident. We are ready to share these experiences with
the rest of the world.
In conclusion, for decades countries and
academics have questioned the viability of small
States. History, though, has witnessed not only our
viability, but also that we are a dependable beacon of
hope for others, be they large or small. We live in an
interconnected world where national political decisions
in one corner of the world have devastating
consequences thousands of miles away.
We must therefore of necessity become our
brothers’ keepers. In that vein, we call on Member
States to lend their support to the international meeting
to review the Barbados Programme of Action for the
Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States, scheduled to be held in Mauritius in January
2005.
Finally, I would like to repeat my call that
partnership must trump nationalism and that
multilateralism must transcend unilateralism.


It gives me
great pleasure to address the General Assembly on
behalf of the Group of 77 and China, currently chaired
by my country, Qatar. I would like to seize this
opportunity to extend congratulations to Mr. Jean Ping
on his assumption of the presidency of the current
session of the General Assembly, wishing His
Excellency every success in the discharge of his
functions. I would also like to extend thanks to his
predecessor, Mr. Julian Hunte, for guiding the work of
the previous session.
It also gives me pleasure to express my
appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, for his
judicious conduct of the work of this Organization
during a critical period in which international relations
have faced and are still facing immense challenges.
The United Nations was established six decades
ago as an expression of the aspirations of all the
members of the international community to save the
world from the scourge of war, to maintain
international peace and security, and to achieve
cooperation among nations and people in various
fields. Roughly two decades after its inception, on
15 June 1964, to be exact, the Group of 77 was
established to express the aspirations of scores of
developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America
to work with each other under the umbrella of the
United Nations, with a view to promoting their
common economic interests, developing their
negotiating capacity regarding various international
economic issues and increasing the bonds of their
technical cooperation.
Just as the United Nations has grown, its
membership has increased and the scope of its activity
has expanded, so, too, the Group of 77 and China has
attracted new members into its membership — which
now stands at 132 States, constituting more than two
thirds of the membership of the United Nations.
Our Group embodies the commitment of the
developing countries to the mission of the United
Nations and their determination to be guided by the
lofty principles enshrined in its Charter. While the
ministerial meetings of the Group highlight with
utmost certainty its close relationship with the
international organizations, the actions of its States
since April 2000, when it convened its first meeting at
the level of presidents and heads of Government,
reaffirm the interest of its members in promoting
coordination among themselves, inspired by the
principles of the United Nations to achieve their aims.
In the view of the Group of 77 and China, the
difficult challenge facing the international community
today is that of maintaining international peace and
security while achieving economic welfare and
development. The history of international relations
over the second half of the last century has shown that
it is almost impossible to maintain peace and security
as long as people lack the minimum requirements for a
basic dignified livelihood. Poverty and destitution have
often resulted in tensions that have led to breaches of
international peace and security, and it is no
coincidence that the poorest regions in the world are
the ones that have suffered the most complicated
regional conflicts.
To achieve the aims of security and development
simultaneously, the international community needs to
adopt more equitable policies that do justice to a large
segment of the members of the international
community who still lack many of the basic necessities
of life.
It is indisputable that globalization has acquired
an immense momentum and yielded positive results.
Nevertheless, it has been accompanied by some
adverse effects as well, and a review and
reconsideration of a number of current international
economic policies is needed before globalization can
acquire the human face it is supposed to have.
The continued imbalance in the distribution of the
benefits of international economic interdependence, the
progressive widening of the gap between the developed
and the developing countries, and the deterioration of
the economic conditions in quite a few countries of the
South, with the attendant adverse effects on the
environment, will accentuate feelings of discontent and
frustration and could even lead to abhorrent forms of
international conflict.
Accordingly, it is necessary to eliminate the
obstacles that make it difficult for developing countries
to reap the fruits of world economic growth, and the
international community must reaffirm its commitment
to the eradication of poverty and the achievement of
the Millennium Development Goals through a deeper
and more comprehensive integration of the developing
countries in the world economy.
13

The Group of 77 and China urgently calls for the
establishment of an open multilateral trading system,
one which takes into account the norms of justice and
the rule of law and is geared to assisting developing
countries combat poverty and underdevelopment. Such
a system requires the elimination of bias in the
liberalization of trade between the developed and the
developing countries and the discontinuation of
practices that continue to impede freedom of
commerce, such as recourse to agricultural subsidies,
support for certain products and restrictions on the
movement of individuals, which make it impossible for
developing countries to tap their potential or market
many of their products.
In this regard we call on the developed countries
to liberalize trade at a faster rate by removing the
various obstacles that have so far deprived the
developing countries of their right to enjoy
international trade relations based on equal
opportunity. While noting the progress achieved in the
Doha negotiations on the question of agriculture, we
support the access to the world market of other
products from developing countries and urge that this
issue should be accorded the priority it deserves.
Moreover, there should be agreement on specific
measures to ensure sufficient financial flows to
developing countries, especially foreign direct
investment, to assist those countries in building the
production capacity they need to compete in the world
market. We would also stress the importance of
enabling everyone to benefit from the achievements of
science and technology and thereby to gain access to
sources of knowledge and receive help in achieving
development.
A review of the implementation of the
Millennium Declaration indicates that its objectives
relating to the countries of Africa and the least
developed countries have so far seemed unattainable.
This is due in large measure to the failure of countries
to fulfil the commitments they so generously made at
various United Nations conferences and summits. As
the General Assembly is going to undertake the first
review of the Millennium Declaration next year, we
should seize the opportunity of our meeting today to
renew our commitment to the prompt implementation
of the Declaration. At the 2005 review of the
Declaration, the Group of 77 and China will present a
series of implementing proposals, most of which focus
on the development of multilateral international
relations, with particular emphasis on the situation in
Africa, the least developed countries and the
landlocked developing countries. We have participated
actively in seeking practical solutions to the problems
besetting those regions and will participate in the
forthcoming review of the Barbados Programme of
Action for the Sustainable Development of Small
Island Developing States early in 2005. I take this
opportunity to urge the international community to
support the Barbados Programme of Action, as it is an
integral part of our efforts to move towards a better
world.
Allow me now to address, on behalf of my
country, Qatar, a number of political issues closely
related to our aim of enabling the developing countries
and peoples to enjoy their full economic rights. In
particular, I wish to single out the absence of
democracy and the prolonged slackening of political
reform evident in a number of countries of the South,
and probably most apparent in the past few years in the
Middle East, where they have been at the root of most
of the harsh social and economic suffering currently
plaguing that region.
Political reform and people’s participation in
decision-making are no longer an option but have
become a definite necessity. As the history of
economic relations has shown, the States that have
made the greatest economic achievements — whether
in the North or in the South — have been those which
were most committed to the exercise of democracy.
The few exceptions — States that have managed to
improve their economic performance without following
the principles of democracy — have known limited
success and have continued to be vulnerable to sudden
economic upheavals.
Just as international economic relations are
dominated by the discourse on sustainable
development, another discourse must be launched on
what I would term “sustainable reform”. There is no
lesson to be learned from the experience of the
countries of the South which undertake political reform
one moment then regress the next or take one step
towards democracy to serve a selfish interest then take
two steps backwards once that interest has been
satisfied. One must instead look for guidance to the
long history of development, which shows that those
States which succeed are those which realize that their
economies must be based on efficiency and that
efficiency can be achieved, not by fiat and policies of
14

intimidation and confinement, but only by discussion
of and participation in public affairs.
The question of Palestine embodies the suffering
of a people deprived of both its political and its
economic rights and struggling, despite its difficulties,
to remedy the situation. However, the Israeli
occupation remains a crushing burden on the legitimate
Palestinian dreams of freedom and development. For
more than 50 years, the question of Palestine has been
on the agenda of the General Assembly. Hence, the
international community needs to listen to its
conscience and to reconsider its position, bearing in
mind that this question despite its humanitarian nature
and manifest legitimacy, has been allowed to fester
from one century to the next, thus compounding the
tragedy of the Palestinian people before the might of
the Israeli occupation forces. Compelling Israel to
implement the resolutions of international legitimacy is
more than a mere duty, because such legitimacy must
not be applied selectively. Also, Israel must fulfil the
commitments it has made, in accordance with the
advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
issued on 9 July 2004 and later endorsed by the
General Assembly at its tenth emergency special
session. This includes its commitment to the road map;
halting the construction of the separation wall, which
has harmed the Palestinian homeland and disrupted
livelihoods; and enabling the Palestinian people to
exercise its right to self determination and to establish
an independent State, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its
capital, that would coexist in security and peace with
Israel.
Related to this is the need to achieve a
comprehensive peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli
conflict on the basis of Israel’s withdrawal from all the
territories occupied in 1967, including the Syrian
Golan and the Lebanese Shaba’a farms. In this regard,
we stress the need to transform the Middle East into a
zone free of weapons of mass destruction, without any
exception.
As regards Iraq, it is our hope that Security
Council resolution 1546 (2004) will help stabilize the
situation so as to allow the implementation of the
resolution’s timetable regarding the holding of free,
democratic elections and the timely drafting of a
permanent constitution as a prelude to the
establishment of an elected constitutional government.
Also, we will spare no effort in supporting the
reconstruction of Iraq, and we affirm our position of
principle regarding the need to safeguard its
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and
non-interference in its internal affairs. We would also
like to emphasize the central role of the United Nations
in Iraq.
We note with satisfaction the commitment of the
Sudan to work closely with the international
community to resolve the conflict in the Darfur region.
This makes it incumbent on the international
community to cooperate positively with the Sudanese
Government, especially since it has initiated actions to
restore the rule of law to mitigate the suffering of the
inhabitants of that region. We also welcome the
accords that were signed to find a peaceful settlement
to the problem of southern Sudan and urge the
international community to support the efforts of the
Government of the Sudan in this regard.
These last issues which I have raised, although
seemingly of a political nature related to chronic
regional problems, mainly in the Middle East, are not,
in fact, far removed from the endeavours of the Group
of 77 and China to achieve a more equitable
international order. The regional stability that is sought
in each of these cases will allow economic
reconstruction on a sound basis in every instance.
The Group of 77 has been striving for more than
40 years on more than one front. While building
bridges among developing counties, it has actively
sought to reach out to the developed countries and
convince them that the interest of the international
economic order lies in narrowing the gap, rather than
widening it. Moreover, it will always remain
committed to the principles of the United Nations,
mindful of the need for continuous coordination with
its organs and bodies.