Allow
me to convey to this Assembly the heartfelt greetings
of the Government and people of the Republic of
Vanuatu. I should like first of all to sincerely
congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the
Presidency of the fifty-eight session of the General
Assembly. You have assumed the Presidency at an
extremely difficult, unsettled and complex time. A
series of regrettable events have imperilled the political
and ideological authority which is the universal
foundation of the United Nations ability to work for the
maintenance of peace and security in the world. Given
the enormity of the challenges that now face us, my
delegation — and I personally — would like to
solemnly assure you of our support and full
cooperation.
The job of the Secretary-General is one of the
most difficult jobs, in particular when the very
founding principles of the Organization are being
compromised or simply discarded in favour of the
interest of some Members. The Government of Vanuatu
admires the outstanding authority and clear-sightedness
as well as the diplomatic qualities of Mr. Kofi Annan,
the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His
wisdom and his persistence have enabled Member
States to step up their efforts to make the work of the
United Nations more effective and better adapted to the
maintenance of peace throughout the world, while
keeping the focus on development priorities such as, in
particular, the small economies of island States such as
Vanuatu.
Quite frankly, we are participating in this meeting
somewhat confused about the future of our
Organization, since a minority of Powers are
influencing the system to advance their own interests
and to the detriment of the principles and mandates
which are the prerogatives of the United Nations. The
United Nations mission, inter alia, is to work for
peaceful coexistence among peoples and nations. But
the United Nations is being thwarted because of the
unilateral initiatives of certain Powers. This is the
responsibility of its Members, and this situation has to
be addressed in order to restore the central role of the
United Nations in conflict settlement.
We cannot conceive of any unilateral action in the
future without the risk of paralysing the Organization
itself. The decline of order and justice and the various
conflicts that are occurring throughout the world are
particularly disquieting. If the international system
continues to be influenced by certain Powers, the
future will remain uncertain, notwithstanding the
individual efforts made by Member States and despite
the countless resolutions adopted by this Assembly.
In recent years, the international geopolitical
environment has been dramatically shaken.
Irresponsible actions have unleashed much hatred and
4

bitterness, which jeopardizes world peace and
harmony. The fundamental principles that justified the
existence of the United Nations are now being called
into question and we are duty-bound explicitly and
clearly to redefine the new objectives and to strengthen
the founding principles of the United Nations.
Many tragic events have occurred and countless
innocent lives have been destroyed. These are the facts
of the world today. I would like to take this opportunity
to pay tribute to the members of the Secretariat who
tragically lost their lives in the line of duty and to
convey condolences to the United Nations Secretariat
as well as to the families of the victims of that brutal
and horrendous act. That barbaric and inhuman act of
violence saddens us all. I join with previous speakers
in condemning that brutal act.
Unfortunately, some of us have contributed to the
current situation. A brief overview of past events
definitely shows that various world conflicts, wars,
famines, droughts, epidemics, poverty and
environmental degradation are on the increase. Many
developing countries are facing a variety of
development difficulties, such as the increase in
unemployment that contributes to the degradation of
societies. In many cases, the destruction of social and
cultural progress, caused by globalization and
modernization, has increased feelings of hatred and
bitterness. The main outlines for future development
have been mapped out but the success of the
implementation of this remains dependant on political
will, particularly the financial commitments of the
industrialized countries. However, I am still optimistic
and I trust in your wisdom, Mr. President, to guide us
to a better future.
While counter-terrorism and normalization in
some countries are on the agenda, we should not divert
our attention from the development issues that can
undermine the future of developing countries.
Considerable resources will be devoted to security
questions, when only a tiny share of this amount would
be enough to meet the needs of the developing
countries.
The environment is another area of concern. We
support previous statements by representatives of the
island States of the Pacific, and we continue to
encourage countries that have not yet done so to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol as soon as possible.
How can we explain to our peoples that certain
international obligations are priorities only for the
small States, whereas the super-Powers seem hardly to
be concerned about them, or are even hostile to them,
and yet do not hesitate to impose a series of conditions
which contribute to the underdevelopment of small
States and which we could describe as political and
economic interference?
The unilateral imposition and maintenance of the
ban on the sale of products containing kava in Europe
is an example of this discriminatory attitude. The
European countries involved do not seem to take
account of the scientific studies establishing the
absence of any link between kava and kidney disease, a
link suggested by the health authorities of some
European countries.
The threat of economic sanctions by the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) against tax havens in the
Pacific, while excepting European jurisdictions, leaves
no alternative than to accept the conditions imposed
without any consideration of the economies concerned.
Since our acceptance in principle of the OECD
conditions we have received no indication from that
organization of any quid pro quo that it can provide in
the case of economic loss.
Despite the opposition of the Pacific region to the
transportation of nuclear waste in the waters of our
region, certain Powers show a complete lack of respect
for the sovereignty of the small islands States of the
Pacific. It is not only a question of the environment and
of protecting our natural resources against any disaster;
it is much more a question of ethics. In other words, we
regret the complete lack of respect for the small island
States of the Pacific as fully fledged members of the
international community.
It is generally recognized today that trade is the
engine of development. However, like other countries
of similar size, Vanuatu is facing certain tariff and non-
tariff restrictions which are causing our agricultural
products to be inaccessible to, in particular, markets
that are often described as free.
Bringing national laws into line with international
conventions carries costs that are often
disproportionate for the small countries. In almost all
cases, national resource constraints, financial as well as
technical, are ignored, whereas they must be taken into
5

account for the success of any programme of action
resulting from international commitments.
We must not lose sight of the basic principle of
the right to self-determination. We reiterate that the
credibility of the United Nations rests on following up
the implementation of any reform aimed at recognizing
the right of peoples to self-determination, in the
context of respect for others and for the United Nations
Charter. We therefore applaud the efforts by the
Government of Indonesia to open and maintain
dialogue with the various social and minority
constituents, as well as those in West Papua, in respect
for human rights and freedom of expression.
We welcome the positive role and efforts of
Australia and New Zealand, after an unprecedented
decision by the countries of the region, to restore and
maintain order, security and peace in the region, and in
particular in the Solomon Islands.
We applaud the French President, Mr. Jacques
Chirac, for having initiated a summit meeting of heads
of State and Government of the South Pacific region,
held last July, in order to strengthen our cooperation.
I trust in your wisdom, Mr. President, to make
sure that all the theories expounded in the Assembly
are followed by concrete, practical action. We have a
duty to work collectively through the multilateral
institutions to help resolve and overcome the
difficulties and challenges that face us. In order to do
that, we need to constantly review the very structure of
the United Nations. The various unilateral initiatives
have highlighted the limits of the current structure
which have caused a weakening of the multilateral
approach. Many super-Powers are unwilling to share
even a part of their authority within the United Nations
and seem to prefer the status quo. The principles of
democratization and transparency advocated by most
Members must be taken into account in the
reorganization and in the Organization’s decision-
making process.
My delegation supports changing the permanent
membership of the Security Council to include Japan
and a representative of the African continent, of the
Middle East and of the Alliance of Small Island States.
This reform would give the Organization greater
transparency, restore confidence in it and improve
international cooperation. My delegation strongly
supports the proposals made, and in particular the
nomination of a group of leaders representing the
various regions and the main categories of economies
in order to launch this important proposal. This long
awaited review will finally come about.
We need to take this great opportunity to renew
and strengthen the United Nations in order to give it
the qualities it needs to meet the challenges of our
time. Strengthening the cohesion and unity of our great
community of nations will be a daunting challenge, one
which we are prepared to meet, while offering our
complete and unconditional support.
We have aired our concerns in order to stress the
injustices and contradictions in the current situation,
but we assure the Organization of our support and our
commitment to seeing the Organization revitalized,
capable of meeting the aspirations of all its Members,
whether large or small, rich or poor, strong or weak.
The contradictions of principle, mounting
terrorism, human suffering, and the emergence of
conflicts in regions that are normally peaceful,
combined with the injustices of globalization, are all
ingredients for a future catastrophe.
In conclusion, my delegation remains convinced
that only a reinvigorated United Nations can contribute
in a lasting manner to world peace and security.


I would like to congratulate
His Excellency, the Foreign Minister of Saint Lucia,
upon his assumption of the Presidency of the General
Assembly, and wish him much success.
Until just one month ago, every person in this hall
and every Member of this Organization joined us in the
hope that the Middle East peace process might finally
be back on track, and that a resolution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict might be on the horizon. The
establishment of a new Palestinian Government
promised an end to terror and a new beginning.
This glimmer of hope was darkened on 19 August
by the extremists who blew up a bus full of Jewish
families on their way home from prayers at the Western
Wall, the holiest site in the Jewish religion. Twenty-
three people, young and old, mothers and babies in
their cradles, were slaughtered in that attack. That
attack was carried out by Hamas, a terrorist
organization, which, under the road map, should have
been dismantled by the Palestinian Authority. Failure
to dismantle Hamas and other extremist organizations
has brought our diplomatic efforts to a standstill.
Rather than acting to fulfil its obligation, the
Palestinian Authority has chosen the route of inaction,
and complicity in terror.
We cannot allow this to continue. We must restore
hope that we can build a better future for our children.
The infrastructure of terror must be dismantled so that
we can put our peace efforts back on track. There is no
time other than now. There is no other way.
For many years it was thought that terrorism in
the Middle East was Israel’s problem, not the world’s.
Today, the world knows otherwise. Today, it is not only
Israel that mourns the loss of its loved ones, including
women and children and babies, at the hands of the
terrorists. Sadly, we have been joined by peoples from
across the globe — from Mombassa to Casablanca and
from Moscow to Bali. Even the United Nations, which
for so many has been a symbol of peace and goodwill,
is not immune.
28

Gathered here today in New York, just two short
years after 11 September, the community of nations
knows that those who seek to advance their political
agendas through killing innocents are ready to strike at
anyone or anything that represents the values of
freedom and human life.
Terrorism has declared war on us all. Israel has
often stood alone in this battle. A country that has
suffered more than any other from terrorism, we have
always understood the danger it poses to democracy
and freedom everywhere, even when others refused to
see this, and condemned us for our actions. We have
always understood that terrorism, no matter what cause it
claims to serve, seeks only to destroy, rather than to build.
There can be no neutrality in the war against
terrorism and there can be no immunity for those who
engage in it. Abstaining is not an option. This is not a
war of choice. Terrorism will not be eliminated until
the world unites against it. Our only choice is to win.
Every member of the international community must
take concrete and proactive measures to cut off all
channels of financial, moral and political support to
this common enemy.
States Members of this institution that sponsor
terrorists and give them shelter are accomplices in the
acts of terror themselves. They must be held
accountable for their crimes. It is no coincidence that
States that sponsor terrorism, like Iran and Syria, are
also striving to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Their hostility to freedom and the rule of law puts the
very future of humanity in jeopardy.
I know that many in this place see Yasser Arafat
as the symbol of the Palestinian struggle. Tragically,
for his people and for ours, he is one of the world’s
icons of terror. In the 10 years since Arafat made a
commitment to Israel and the world that he would no
longer use terror, 1,126 Israelis have been killed and
thousands wounded in 19,000 separate Palestinian
terrorist attacks. In relative numbers, this would be the
same as 11,000 French or 56,000 Americans dying
from terrorism in the same period of time.
This carnage must stop. Its impact on both
societies is devastating. Yasser Arafat bears direct
responsibility for this terrible suffering. He has led his
people along the path of terror — from hijackings to
suicide bombings — for more than 30 years, always
preferring Israeli pain over Palestinian gain. He has
been — and he remains — the greatest obstacle to
peace between our peoples. For as long as he controls
the levers of power, no moderate leadership can
emerge. To vote for Arafat, like we saw in this
Assembly just last week, is to vote against the
Palestinian people. When Arafat wins, terrorism wins,
and we all lose. Instead of rallying around Arafat, the
international community must rally around the genuine
interests of the Palestinian people. They must do so
now, before he leads them even further down the path
of terror and destruction.
When a responsible and empowered Palestinian
leadership finally emerges — a leadership ready to join
the war on terror — it will find us a willing partner for
peace. Israel is committed to the vision for Middle East
peace laid out by United States President George Bush
on 24 June 2002. Israel will not compromise on the
safety of its citizens, but we will go the extra mile, as
we have proven before, to bring peace and security to
both our peoples.
We are ready to work with the Palestinians and
with the international community to make this vision a
reality. For this to happen, the Palestinian leadership
must take the moral and strategic decision to abandon
terrorism once and for all, and make peacemaking
possible. They must guide their people to build their
own society, rather than seek to destroy ours. They,
too, must understand that it is not poverty that breeds
terror but terror that breeds poverty.
We cannot stop only at dismantling the
infrastructure of terror. We must also build an
infrastructure of peace. It is up to political and moral
leaders everywhere to foster an environment which
rejects extremism and empowers the peacemakers. This
is particularly so in the Arab and Muslim world, where
incitement against Israel closes hearts and minds to the
possibility of peace.
Leaders must guide their people away from the
culture of hate, and replace it with a culture of
tolerance. Concrete expressions of cooperation and
exchange must be built in media and government,
education, science and business, to reinforce the
message of tolerance and acceptance.
For the sake of our collective future, voices of
moderation must be heard. For the sake of our
collective future, Israel and the Arab nations must learn
to live together side by side, to overcome our conflicts
just as the nations of Europe have learned to overcome
theirs. Israel is living among its Arab neighbours. We
29

believe in a common future of peace and prosperity
with them. My many meetings with Arab leaders over
the last few days have encouraged me to believe that
together we can make our region a better place.
This culture of peace must permeate not only the
borders of the Middle East, it must permeate the walls
of the United Nations as well. In the past, the United
Nations has shown us that it can play a positive role.
This Assembly was key to the founding of the State of
Israel, 55 years ago. Security Council resolutions 242
(1967) and 338 (1973) are our guideposts to
negotiations and peace.
To play such a constructive role in the future, the
United Nations must reform. It must move away from
the partisan hostility that has taken over its Middle East
agenda. For more than three decades, this Assembly
has passed every year a litany of resolutions designed
to discredit Israel, challenge its interests, and promote
the will of its greatest enemies.
In my hand I am holding a collection of the
decisions of the fifty-seventh General Assembly on the
Middle East — 175 pages filled not with hope, but with
the negative agendas of the past. No other country has
suffered such unjustified attack and consistent
discrimination within the United Nations system. The
time has come to end this campaign of diplomatic
incitement. For the sake of Israelis and Palestinians —
for the sake of the United Nations and peace itself — I
call on this body to rise above the tired politics of
yesterday, and adopt a new, courageous agenda for
tomorrow.
I call on the General Assembly to abandon the
automatic adoption of anti-Israel resolutions and to
find ways of making itself relevant once again to the
interests of the people it claims to serve. I call on this
Assembly to fulfil its historic mission and help
promote what unites us, not what divides us.
On the morning of 1 February of this year, Israel
lost its first astronaut in the Space Shuttle Columbia
disaster — a skilled and courageous pilot whom I knew
personally, a child of Holocaust survivors, a national
hero. Colonel Ilan Ramon embodied the spirit of our
nation. He was a man of courage and action, dedicated
to the well-being of his people. Just as he sought to
contribute to the advancement of his fellow man, he
met his death, together with colleagues from the United
States and India, on a scientific mission in the name of
humanity as a whole.
Israel’s place in such endeavours of international
cooperation and accomplishment is no coincidence. In
the 55 years since the State of Israel was established,
recognized and welcomed into the family of nations,
our achievements in the fields of science and
technology, the arts and literature and agriculture and
medicine have come to rank with the best in the world.
Our international cooperation programme is celebrated
in over a hundred countries around the globe, sharing
skills, experience and knowledge for the benefit of
millions of people. We extend this hand of friendship
to all the nations of the world. We welcome our
improving relations with Europe, just as we remain
committed to promoting closer ties with the nations of
Africa, Asia and the Americas.
The Zionist vision of Israel’s founders was to
bring into the world a State in our ancient homeland to
serve as a haven from persecution for our people, a
place where the Jewish people could fulfil its right to
self-determination in the modern era and a bastion of
democracy and opportunity for all its citizens. Our
founders also made a promise not just to the people of
Israel, but also to the people of the Middle East as a
whole — to pursue peace and to work for the common
advancement of our region.
I know personally the profound meaning of this
historic undertaking. I came to Israel as a young
refugee from Tunisia. I serve as one of hundreds of
thousands of immigrants to whom Israel has granted
promise and protection, freedom and opportunity,
through the values and institutions of democracy.
I stand here today to reaffirm, before the nations
of the world, the commitment of my country to peace.
Peace for the people of Israel is both a moral and
historic imperative. “Shalom” — the word for peace in
Hebrew — is central to our language and our heritage.
It is how we say “hello” and it is how we say
“goodbye”. It is a name we give to our children. It is
my own family name.
It was our prophet Isaiah, who brought this
message of peace to the world centuries ago, when he
said: “And they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation, neither
shall they learn war any more”.
Israel’s historic record is clear. Whenever a true
partner for peace has emerged, he has been met with
Israel’s extended hand. This was true when President
30

Anwar Sadat of Egypt came to Jerusalem in 1977 and it
was true when King Hussein of Jordan signed the
Peace Treaty with us in 1994. The same is true today.
Israel stands ready to complete the circle of peace with
all its neighbours — real peace, not just peace for the
headlines, but peace which brings an end to violence
and hostility and positive change for the citizens of our
region.
From this great rostrum — a rostrum shared by
all humanity — I call on the leaders of Syria and
Lebanon, of Iran and of the Palestinian people to
abandon once and for all their hostility towards us and
to join us in building a better future for our children.
This evening, I shall return to Jerusalem, the
eternal capital of the Jewish people, to join with them
in celebrating Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.
According to our tradition, this is a time when God
determines the fate of each and every individual for the
coming year. These are days of reflection and prayer.
May all our prayers for peace and for life be answered,
and may the actions and deeds of all the States and
peoples represented here in this Hall bring to mankind
peace and all the blessings that life can offer.


I should
like to begin by extending to Mr. Julian Hunte sincere
congratulations on his election to the presidency of the
General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session. The
Eritrean delegation is convinced that, under his wise
guidance, this session will address, with vision and
courage, the challenging issues that are confronting the
world.
My delegation would also like to take this
opportunity to express appreciation and thanks to his
predecessor, Mr. Jan Kavan, President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-seventh session, for the wisdom
and skill he displayed in leading the session to a
successful conclusion. We also pay tribute to the
Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, for his steadfast
commitment to the cause of peace and development —
the twin pillars of the United Nations Charter.
Eritrea pays tribute to and thanks the facilitators
and guarantors of the United Nations Mission in
Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) and its partners, the
troop- and observer-contributing countries, as well as
donor countries, for the assistance they generously
extended to ensure the success of the peace process. It
also urges them not to be discouraged by the recent
negative developments and to continue their assistance,
which is essential for the achievement of peace and
security in our region.
Eritrea would like to bring to the Assembly’s
attention the dangerous developments that are
threatening to destroy the peace process between
Eritrea and Ethiopia. In a message communicated to
the Secretary-General, on 19 September 2003, Ethiopia
officially rejected the decision of the Boundary
Commission and threatened to unleash another war of
aggression against Eritrea if the terms and conditions it
had set were not met.
It should be recalled that Ethiopia declared war
on Eritrea in 1998 because it claimed ownership of the
sovereign Eritrean town of Badme. At that time, we
made every possible diplomatic effort to prevent an
unwarranted and unjustifiable war — prior to and in
the aftermath of Ethiopia’s official declaration of war.
Unfortunately, that sent the wrong signal to Ethiopia
and prompted the regime in power to pursue — with
impunity — its policy of belligerence, and to unleash
successive military offensives that that resulted in a
great loss of life and the destruction of property.
After a cycle of senseless and bloody military
clashes, reason prevailed, with the signing of the
Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities and the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Algiers in June
and December 2000, respectively. A Boundary
Commission, empowered to be the final arbiter for the
boundary claims, was subsequently created. The
Commission announced its final and binding decision
on 13 April 2002. Badme was confirmed by the
Commission’s decision as being sovereign Eritrean
territory.
In spite of its treaty obligations to respect and
duly implement the final and binding decision of the
Boundary Commission, however, Ethiopia has chosen
to flout international law and practice. Thus, its
rejection of the entire decision and its denunciation of
the Commission follow a series of major violations of
the Algiers Agreements, including the illegal
deployment of troops and the building of settlements in
sovereign Eritrean territory, the aggravation of the
suffering of over 60,000 Eritrean citizens, who remain
displaced from their home villages in the temporary
security zone, and the delay of demarcation because of
obstructions caused by its tactics to prevent preparatory
field work. That has resulted in huge financial cost to
the international community.
As most Members will have been informed by
now, the Ethiopian Prime Minister declared, in a letter
of 19 September to the Secretary-General, that the
boundary demarcation process is “in terminal crisis”.
The Prime Minister heaped insults on the Boundary
Commission, dismissed its judgement as “totally
illegal, unjust and irresponsible” and called on the
Security Council to set up “an alternative mechanism”
to demarcate the contested parts of the boundary. He
further suggested that UNMEE should pack up and
leave, and pleaded for international recognition and
endorsement of Ethiopia’s occupation of sovereign
Eritrean territories.
Ethiopia’s provocative letter represents nothing
less than an unprecedented assault on the fundamental
principles of international law and the key tenets of the
Algiers peace agreements, as well as Security Council
resolution 1507 (2003). It is full of blatant lies and
distortions in its account of the legal principles and
18

findings that the Boundary Commission invoked in
determining the location of Badme.
The Prime Minister’s letter contrasts sharply with
the public statement of his Government when the
Boundary Commission announced its decision on 13
April 2002. At that time, Ethiopia urged the
international community to put intense pressure on
Eritrea to accept and implement the decision of the
Boundary Commission fully and faithfully. It declared
full legal victory and even bragged about its
“successful litigation strategy that hinged on a
maximalist approach” of exaggerating its claims to
include territories that never belonged to it. This
blatant revelation, which is in fact true, was repeated
by both the Prime Minister and his Minister for Foreign
Affairs in a report to the Ethiopian Parliament as
recently as last month.
Let me now briefly address some of the issues
raised in the Ethiopian letter.
First, article 4.2 of the Algiers Peace Agreement
unambiguously states that:
“a neutral Boundary Commission composed of
five members shall be established with a mandate
to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty
border based on the pertinent colonial treaties
(1900, 1902, 1908) and applicable international
law.”
Article 4.15 further states:
“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”.
Therefore, Ethiopia cannot thus arbitrarily and
unilaterally discard these key provisions of the peace
agreement or urge the Security Council to set up a new
mechanism.
Secondly, the Temporary Security Zone was
never intended or set up to create a provisional
boundary. Article 10 of the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement specifically states that this will not
prejudge the final status of the contested areas, which
will be determined at the end of the delimitation and
demarcation of the boundary. In this regard, it is
instructive to note that the Boundary Commission had
notified both parties, in its delimitation decision of 13
April 2002, to recognize and respect each other’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity as determined by
the delimitation decision pending demarcation on the
ground. The boundary is thus already determined. This
is reinforced by Security Council resolution 1507
(2003), which calls on both parties to recognize and
respect each other’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty. Ethiopia’s ludicrous suggestion of
“recognizing the southern boundary of the Temporary
Security Zone” as the boundary between the two
countries” thus represents a flagrant violation of the
Algiers Peace Agreements and relevant Security
Council resolutions.
Thirdly, UNMEE’s mandate shall terminate when
the delimitation-demarcation process of the border has
been completed, pursuant to article 5 of the Cessation
of Hostilities Agreement. Ethiopia will again commit a
gross violation of the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement if, as it has intimated in its letter, it requests
UNMEE to leave before completing its task.
Obviously, Ethiopia’s primary concern is not the
financial burden that UNMEE’s prolonged presence
would entail for the international community.
Ethiopia is, in fact, guilty of a litany of
obstructions and violations that have in the past
prevented expeditious demarcation. It cannot now shed
crocodile tears or preach to the international
community on ways and means of reducing financial
costs. If this is a thinly veiled threat meant to convey to
us its intentions of unleashing war, our response is that
Ethiopia will be the sole party responsible for
endangering regional peace and stability.
As the main guarantor of the Algiers Peace
Agreement, the Security Council has legal treaty
obligations to prevent war. Indeed, in accordance with
article 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement,
the Security Council should urgently consider
Ethiopia’s flagrant violations of the Algiers Peace
Agreement and take appropriate measures under
Article VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Fourthly, Ethiopian leaders also argue that
“the people of Ethiopia will not accept the
decisions of the Boundary Commission [and that]
Ethiopia will be embroiled in a political crisis and
civil war if we accept the decision”.
19

These hackneyed arguments have been used by
previous Ethiopian leaders to justify their wars of
aggression. The truth is that the people of Ethiopia
have enjoyed internal harmony only when they were at
peace with Eritrea. Whenever it has been at war with
Eritrea, Ethiopia has become a source of instability in
the region, and its people the victims of recurrent
famines and pestilence. Also, such declarations must
ring an alarm bell, because they are similar, if not
identical, to statements made by those leaders who
embroiled Europe in the Second World War.
In our view, Ethiopia’s leaders have assumed
their lawlessness and aggressive invasion policy
because they have been emboldened by past patterns of
unjustifiable tolerance by the international community.
No action was taken against Ethiopia when it violated
the moratorium on air strikes brokered by the United
States and launched its second offensive in February
1999. No action was taken against Ethiopia when, in
violation of the technical arrangements forged by the
United States, the European Union, the United Nations
and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and
considered final and binding, it launched its third
offensive in May 2000. Ethiopia has now reached the
apex of its record of lawlessness, contempt for the rule
of law, treaty obligations and the Charter of the United
Nations by rejecting the final and binding decision of
an Arbitration Commission. How long will this culture
of impunity continue? When is the world going to say,
“Enough is enough” and invoke article 14 of the
Algiers Agreement?
Article 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities
Agreement states clearly, inter alia, that
“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 on the basis of pertinent colonial
treaties and applicable international law … 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”.
Should not the United Nations and the
international community now take these actions in the
name of justice and the Charter of the United Nations?
The international community has already invested
too much — in financial and in political terms — to
help bring about a legal and peaceful resolution of the
dispute. The political and financial leverage of the
international community, as well as the instruments of
persuasion at its disposal, are also substantial, as
Ethiopia continues to receive lavish development
assistance from multilateral and bilateral partners. Yet,
while all the ingredients and safeguards of success are
there, the danger of failure of the peace process is now
distinct due to the failure of the international
community to take seriously its obligations under this
agreement and to take effective preventive measures.
Unless appropriate action is taken now, before the
situation explodes, crisis management will be too late
and will not be worth the effort.
In this spirit, the Eritrean delegation appeals to
the General Assembly and to the international
community to take necessary and timely actions to
ensure that peace and security prevail in our region.
The obligations of the international community
are clear, while the measures at its disposal are
expressly spelled out in the Algiers Agreement.
Despite international guarantees, Ethiopia has
chosen to blatantly violate international law and its
solemnly signed treaty obligations. Since
19 September, when Ethiopia wilfully crossed a red
line, it has set in motion an irreversible process to
scuttle altogether the Agreement on Cessation of
Hostilities between the Government of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government
of the State of Eritrea. That is an affront not only to
Eritrea but also to the international community as a
whole, and in particular to the United Nations and the
Security Council.
In his report (S/2003/257) to the Security Council
earlier this year, Secretary-General Kofi Annan
expressed his concern that the Eritrea-Ethiopia peace
process was “at a critical stage”. The situation can now
be considered explosive, paving the way — as
Ethiopian leaders seem to wish — to renewed conflict,
with its attendant horrific consequences, unless the
international community acts promptly and decisively.
The harmful effects of Ethiopia’s lawlessness will
not be limited to Eritrea. They will impinge on the
legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations and
mock its core values, if only because they violate the
hallowed injunction that States, big and small, need to
20

observe the basic principles of international law and
the sanctity of legal agreements, and to respect the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.
In conclusion, the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia
have been denied peace for three decades. That has had
a devastating effect on their economies. They deserve
peace and development, which are now recognized as
human rights. Yet such peace can be guaranteed only
by respect for the rule of law, the sanctity of
agreements and the sovereignty and territorial integrity
established by arbitration decisions made on the basis
of legal agreements. Eritrea has always been, and will
continue to be, committed to such peace. It is now up
to the international community, and in particular the
Security Council, to uphold those principles and
values. In essence, Ethiopia is no longer in conflict
with Eritrea, but with the Charter, which the Security
Council must uphold as it has done in several similar
cases.


Last
century bore witness to two terrible world wars, in
which over 80 million human beings perished. It later
seemed that, due to the lessons learned, the United
Nations Organization was born so that war would never
again occur. The Charter, adopted in San Francisco
nearly 60 years ago, proclaimed the purpose of saving
succeeding generations from the scourge of war'.
However, after that we suffered wars of aggression and
conquest, colonial wars, border wars and ethnic wars.
Many peoples were left with no other choice but war to
defend their rights. Moreover, in the last 13 years the
scourge of war has taken another 6 million lives.
Sixty years ago, the world order proclaimed in
the United Nations Charter was sustained through the
military balance of two super-Powers. A bipolar world
was born, which generated clashes, divisions, the cold
war and almost a devastating nuclear war. It was not
the ideal world, far from it. But since one of those
super-Powers has disappeared, the current world is
worse and more dangerous.

Now world order cannot be held together in the
spheres of influence of two similar super-Powers or by
mutual deterrence. What should it be founded on, then?
On the honest and generous recognition by the only
super-Power that, far from disturbing it, should
contribute to the creation of a peaceful world, with the
right to justice and development for all.
Does the war in Iraq contribute to that objective?
No, it does not. Its outcome is just the opposite of the
ideal of preserving peace, strengthening the role of the
United Nations and enhancing multilateralism and
international cooperation. Unfortunately, the truth is
that those most able to prevent and remove threats to
peace are the ones causing war today.
Should the Government of the United States
recognize this truth that almost everyone in this Hall
shares? Yes. What humiliation or harm would there be
to the prestige of this great nation? None. The world
would recognize that a remedy benefiting all had come
about, after the unleashing of a war supported by just a
few, either by shortsightedness or by meanness of
interests; after it was proven that the pretexts brandished
were not true; and after observing the reaction of a people
who, as every invaded and occupied people will do,
have begun to fight and will continue to fight for
respect for their right to self-determination.
23

Therefore, must the occupation in Iraq cease?
Yes, and the sooner the better. It is a source of new and
more serious problems, not of solutions. Must the
Iraqis be left alone to freely establish their own
Government and institutions and make decisions on
their natural resources? Yes. It is their right, and they
will not stop fighting for it.
Must the Security Council be pressured into
adopting decisions that would further undermine it
ethically and morally? No. That would eliminate the
last possibility to profoundly reform, expand and
democratize the Council. The future of the United
Nations will be determined today in the outcome of the
international crisis generated by the war in Iraq.
The most critical danger stalking us today is the
persistence of a world where what prevails is the law of
the jungle, the might of the most powerful, the
privileges and extravagance of a handful of countries,
and the dangers of aggression, underdevelopment and
hopelessness for the vast majority.
Will a worldwide dictatorship be imposed on our
peoples, or will the United Nations and multilateralism
be preserved? That is the question. We all agree, I believe,
that the role of the United Nations is irrelevant today, or at
least is on its way to being so. But some of us say so with
concern and would like to strengthen the Organization.
Others say so with covert satisfaction and encourage
the hope of imposing their designs on the world.
We must speak frankly. What role does the
General Assembly play today? In truth, almost none. It
is merely a debating forum without any true influence
or practical role whatsoever.
Are international relations governed by the
purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter? No.
Why now, when philosophy, the arts and science are
reaching unprecedented levels, is the superiority of
some peoples over others once again proclaimed? And
why are other peoples, who should be treated as
brothers and sisters, referred to as living in the dark
corners of the planet or on the Euro-Atlantic periphery
of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Why do
some among us feel entitled to launch a unilateral war,
given the fact that in the Charter we proclaimed that
military force would only be used to serve the common
interest and that collective measures should be taken to
preserve peace? Why is there no longer any talk about
using peaceful means to settle disputes? Can we
believe that everyone is fostering friendship among our
nations on the basis of respect for the principle of
equality of rights and the self-determination of
peoples? Why then has my people had to suffer, and
continue to suffer, from over four decades of
aggression and economic blockade?
The principle of the sovereign equality for all
States was established when the Charter was adopted.
Are we in fact equal? Do all Member States enjoy
similar rights? According to the Charter we do, but
according to stark reality we do not. Respect for the
principle of the sovereign equality of States, which
should be the cornerstone of contemporary
international relations, will only be established if the
most powerful countries accept in real terms that they
must respect the rights of others, even if those other
countries lack the military might and the economic
power to defend those rights. Are the mightiest and
most developed countries ready to respect the rights of
others, even if doing so might perhaps slightly restrain
the privileges they enjoy? I am afraid that they are not.
Are the principles of the non-use or the threat of use
force, non-interference in the internal affairs of States,
the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for the
territorial integrity and independence of States actually
in force? According to the language and the spirit of
the Charter, they are. But are they really?
It is true that a handful of developed countries has
benefited from the current situation over the last few
decades. But that time is coming to an end. Those
countries are also beginning to become victims of the
imperial policies of a single super-Power. Should they
not take into account, with modesty and common sense,
the need to work with the over 130 Third World countries
that have been compelled to endure this unjust order and
that are ready to attempt to persuade the most powerful
country to put aside its arrogance and to comply with
its duties as a founder of the United Nations?
Cuba believes that we should not, and cannot,
relinquish multilateralism; that we should not, and
cannot, relinquish the United Nations; and that we
cannot, and should not, relinquish the struggle for a
world of peace, justice, equality and development for
all. Cuba therefore believes that we must achieve three
immediate objectives.
First and foremost, we must put an end to the
occupation of Iraq, hand over real control to the United
Nations immediately and begin the recovery process to
re-establish Iraq's sovereignty and put in place a
24

legitimate Government decided upon by the Iraqi
people. In addition, the scandalous distribution of
Iraq's wealth must cease immediately. That will be
beneficial for the United States, whose young people
are dying in Iraq while waging an unjust and inglorious
war. It will be beneficial for Iraq, whose people will be
able to turn over a new page in their history. It will be
beneficial for the United Nations, which has also been
a victim of that war. And it will be beneficial for all of
our countries, which have had to suffer international
economic recession and an increase insecurity that is
threatening us all.
Secondly, we must address without delay the
issue of truly reforming the United Nations and, above
all, undertake a far-reaching democratization process.
The current situation is already untenable, as
evidenced, first of all, by the Security Council's
shameful inability to prevent the war in Iraq and,
secondly, by its demand on the Government of Israel to
refrain from expelling or murdering the leader of the
Palestinian people   a people who, in accordance with
a decision the Council itself took over five decades
ago, should long ago have had an independent State.
That the Government of the United States has exercised
its veto power on 26 occasions to protect the crimes of
Israel is evidence of the fact that that unjust privilege
must be abolished.
What is needed is a reform that goes back to the
roots of the founding of the United Nations; that
guarantees effective respect for the Charter; and that
re-establishes the mechanisms of collective security
and the rule of international law. Reform should also
ensure the ability of the United Nations to preserve
peace and to lead the fight for general and complete
disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, to which
many generations have aspired. Reform should also
restore to the United Nations its prerogatives to fight
for the socio-economic development and the basic
rights of all the planet's inhabitants, including the
rights to food and life. Doing so is more necessary than
ever before, given that neo-liberalism has spectacularly
failed and that a new opportunity now exists for
establishing a new system of international economic
relations. We need to rescue the role of the United
Nations and to ensure that all States, large and small,
respect the Charter. But we do not need a reform that is
going to founder unceremoniously as part of a
bureaucratic process of adapting what is left of the
United Nations to the interests and whims of a few, rich
and mighty countries.
Finally, we need to return to a discussion of the
serious economic and social problems currently
affecting the world. We have to make the battle for the
right of nearly five billion people to development a
priority. The Millennium Assembly committed us to
working for very modest and insufficient goals. But
everything has now been forgotten, without even a
discussion. Seventeen million children under the age of
5 will die this year, not as victims of terrorism but as
victims of under-nourishment and preventable diseases.
Will a realistic debate based on solidarity be held in
this Hall to discuss how, in line with the Millennium
Declaration, to halve by 2015 the number of people,
currently over 1.2 billion in number, who are suffering
from abject poverty, as well as the number who suffer
from hunger, which is more than 800 million? Will
there be any discussion about the nearly 900 million
illiterate adults? Or will the Millennium Declaration
also become a dead letter, as has been the case with the
Kyoto Protocol and the decisions of 10 summits held at
the level of head of State?
Developed countries will provide Third World
countries with $53 billion in official development
assistance this year. In return, those countries will
charge recipients over $350 billion in foreign debt
interest; and our foreign debt will have grown by the
end of the year. Do creditors by any chance believe that
that unjust situation will last forever? Should we, as
debtors, resign ourselves to being poor forever? Is that
picture of injustice and peril confronted by most
countries what the founders of the United Nations
really dreamed of? No. Like us, the founders also
dreamed that a better world was possible.
Those are the questions that, with all due respect,
we would like some in the Hall to answer for us. I am
not talking about Cuba, which, condemned to die for
wanting to be free, has had to fight on its own, not only
thinking about itself but also about all the peoples of
the world.


In 2000, at the dawn of
the new millennium, the heads of State and
Government of the Member States met here to reaffirm
their shared goals. Three years later, that international
consensus has eroded. Member States perceive threats
differently, and they do not share the same priorities.
Some States emphasize the fight against terrorism and
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In
other regions in the world, civil wars, small arms,
poverty, hunger and AIDS are the main dangers.
21

Can the international community reach a
consensus on the objectives to be attained and the way
to achieve them? What importance should we give to
multilateral cooperation? Has the time not come to
review the system of collective security inherited from
the Second World War? Could it be that the United
Nations is due for far-reaching reform?
The fact that so many heads of State and
Government have responded to the Secretary-General's
invitation is a preliminary answer. It is an encouraging
sign. The Member States look to the United Nations to
seek solutions. We must seize the opportunity of this
debate to reaffirm our commitment to multilateral
cooperation and the goals of the United Nations.
Life in society demands a minimum of order,
rules and solidarity. That also applies to international
relations. Switzerland attaches great importance to
respect for international law, which explains its
commitment to humanitarian law or to the International
Criminal Court. Without international law, many
countries would feel themselves at the mercy of the law
of the mightiest. The great powers, like the smaller
ones, need a multilateral framework to resolve their
differences.
The time has come to rethink the role of the
United Nations. Almost 60 years after the foundation
of the Organization, the threats have changed, as have
the geopolitical realities. Terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have
taken on more threatening dimensions. Civil wars have
multiplied. AIDS has become the most deadly
epidemic in the history of humankind. Poverty is far
from being eradicated.
Security can no longer be addressed in purely
military terms. We need to review our vision of
security by focusing greater attention on individuals.
By broadening our approach to security and by placing
fresh emphasis on human security, we can overcome
some of the current differences between the North and
the South.
Together with other countries, Switzerland is
endeavouring to promote the idea of human security.
This year it will commit itself to the issues of the
proliferation of light weapons and anti-personnel
mines. We hope the General Assembly will establish a
working group to develop an instrument for marking
and tracing small arms. If the Members of the
Organization concur, Switzerland is ready to take the
chair.
The Swiss Government also takes an active
interest in the issue of migration. We are working with
other countries to establish a global commission on
international migration, which will be asked to make
recommendations.
In order to promote human security, we must also
keep the promises made in the field of development. In
the Millennium Declaration we have undertaken to
ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for
all humankind. To that end, we have adopted a series of
clear objectives, and deadlines to meet them have been
set. But merely proclaiming goals is not enough; we
must now fulfil them. If the rich countries   and my
country is among them   do not keep their promises,
they will end up causing poor countries to lose hope.
In Cancun, the members of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) tried to revive trade liberalization.
Although positions converged somewhat,
disagreements persist and there is a risk of lasting
failure. That would result in weakened growth at the
global level, to the detriment of all countries. We need
to give negotiations another chance and, above all,
avoid the lure of protectionism.
To affirm a belief in the multilateral system
should not blind us to its weak points. The United
Nations needs more thorough reform.
Switzerland considers that the role of the United
Nations in the economic and social fields must be
defined. We must better take account of the links
between international security and economic
development. Relations between the United Nations,
the Bretton Woods institutions and WTO should also be
reconsidered by a group of independent eminent
persons.
We must also focus our attention on the
functioning of the Organization itself. In the General
Assembly, resolutions that are adopted are too often
reduced to the lowest common denominator or to a
long, vague wish list, with no real impact. The
Assembly must be revitalized. There is a need to
reduce the number of agenda items, limit the length of
texts and avoid the proliferation of resolutions on
issues that overlap.
With regard to the Security Council, a consensus
already exists on the fact that its composition no longer
22

sufficiently reflects contemporary geopolitical realities.
Switzerland supports the idea of enlarging the Council.
That could be done without harming its effectiveness as
long as the increase in the number of members remains
within reasonable bounds and takes into account the
various regional sensibilities.
In the last few years, countries not members of
the Council have been given more opportunities to
participate in the Council's work. Switzerland
welcomes those efforts. However, the crucial decisions
too often remain confined to the restricted circle of the
five permanent members. All members of the Security
Council should be permanently involved in the
decision-making process. It is also important to
institutionalize the modalities of participation for the
other Member States. For example, consultation
mechanisms with those States most directly affected by
conflict areas should be strengthened. It should be
necessary for non-permanent members of the Council
to feel a greater responsibility to represent the views of
those who elected them.
The right of veto is a privilege involving special
responsibilities. It should be used only in exceptional
circumstances. When a permanent member exercises its
right of veto, would it not be desirable for it then to
explain its action to the General Assembly? That way,
that member could make its position better understood
by the international community.
Another goal is to open the United Nations to
civil society. Switzerland welcomes the decision of the
Secretary-General to set up a panel of experts to
consider the possible ways to achieve that.
It is in this spirit of openness towards civil
society that preparations are being carried out for the
World Summit on the Information Society, due to take
place in Geneva in December. More than half of the
world's population does not have access to a telephone.
The use of Internet is even more limited. The goal of
the Summit, a part of the larger framework of the
Millennium Goals, is to discuss ways to narrow the
digital divide between the rich and poor countries. New
technologies must be placed at the service of
development, human rights and democracy.
I invite all Member States to participate actively
in the Summit. Many heads of State and Government
have announced their intention to attend, which gives
me great pleasure. I must address, above all, my
colleagues of the industrialized countries: we must
shoulder our responsibilities. I appeal to them not to
miss that important appointment. We need a North-
South dialogue at the highest level. As I have already
said, we must keep our promises.
In recent months, Iraq has made visible some
international tensions. We must now search together to
find solutions for the future. We all face the same
danger: that of Iraq falling prey to disorder and
instability. The United Nations must be given its place
in Iraq and must receive a clearer mandate from the
Security Council. At the same time, determined
progress must be made towards restoring Iraqi
sovereignty.
In its national history, Switzerland has a long
tradition of harmonious coexistence among its different
communities. We well understand that no single
political model fits all situations. Nevertheless,
Switzerland is ready to share its experience and to
provide support for the process of drawing up a new
constitution in Iraq.
Switzerland joined the United Nations as a
neutral country. That does not prevent it from
defending the universal values to which it is attached.
In this, Switzerland wishes to collaborate with the
other Member States, drawing on the strength of the
Organization. At this point, I would like to pay tribute
to the United Nations and all its staff, who have just
suffered a deadly attack in Baghdad. Every day,
throughout the world, the United Nations and its
specialized agencies do irreplaceable work.
The Secretary-General has spoken of peace as a
dream in suspense. I believe that this also applies to the
other ideals for which the United Nations stands:
justice, solidarity and respect for human dignity.
Dreams are an essential part of the vision of the United
Nations, but so are action, realism, courage and
perseverance.


This is the first time that I come the house of the
peoples of the United Nations. This is also a crucial
time in history, as it is for the Organization. A few
years ago, the international community met in this Hall
to restructure the agenda for the new millennium. We
placed pressing issues and commonalities on that
agenda, as well as the vision and goals necessary to
guide our work. In fact, that agenda became our guide
to ensure international peace and security, democratic
governance and the joining of efforts to combat the
most serious scourges afflicting the peoples of the
world. That notwithstanding, a condemnable terrorist
attack changed the course of our common agenda and
forced all nations of the world to make adjustments to
the priorities that had been set. Security then became
the key, most pressing and compelling focus of
collective action.
Honduras rejects and condemns terrorism in all
its forms and manifestations, regardless of where it
takes place and regardless of its material and
intellectual authors. In that regard, our Organization,
wherein reside the hopes and desires of all the peoples
of the world, also suffered the backlash of that new
threat that sows terror and suffering. From this rostrum,
I wish to pay tribute to Sergio Vieira de Mello, a victim
of injustice and fratricidal hatred.
4

Aware of our responsibilities as a member of the
United Nations, Honduras and the Government over
which I preside have fully assumed their commitment
to the challenges before us. It is for that reason that
Honduras today is party to a greater number of
international conventions aimed at guaranteeing the
security of the inhabitants of the planet. Despite our
modest resources, we have responded to Security
Council resolutions by sending a clearly humanitarian
mission, comprised of a contingent from the Honduran
armed forces, to Iraq in order to contribute to the
reconstruction, stability and democratization of a
friendly people. In the same spirit, Honduras has
renewed its commitment to the United Nations Mission
for the Referendum in Western Sahara.
In addition, along with our sister republics in
Central America, we have worked arduously to develop
a plan to prevent and combat terrorism, as well as a
plan to fight organized crime in all its manifestations. I
have also proposed to the heads of State and
Government of Central America timely initiatives to
increase the exchange of information and to establish a
regional regime for arrests that will keep criminals
from enjoying impunity simply by crossing the borders
of Central America. I am also pleased to report that we
Central Americans have moved forward with an agenda
to ensure adequate limits and a balance in weapons.
That will make it possible for us to invest the resources
freed up in priority social areas.
We have done all of that without forgetting or
setting aside the extraordinary declaration of solidarity
and commitment that we have all undertaken to
eradicate poverty and hunger. Our commitment and
focused efforts have been appropriately reflected in the
Human Development Report, which was recently
presented in the Latin American and Caribbean region
by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). My Government and people were extremely
honoured to have been selected as the site of that
presentation. It is clear from the UNDP report that,
compared to averages in other countries, Honduras has
been able to considerably reduce inequality vis-‡-vis its
economic growth. In other words, although relatively
low, economic growth in Honduras during the reporting
period was rather equitable. We have also made very
significant progress in social spheres and in the area of
institutional reform, and we have benefited from the
support of the United Nations in that regard.
We would like to express our gratitude for our
access to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis
and Malaria, which has made it possible to considerably
increase our focus on those diseases to historical levels.
Again with the support of the Organization, we
have greatly expanded our school lunch programme. In
just 20 months, from an initial figure of 16 per cent, we
have succeeded in reaching 80 per cent of the children
who were going to school hungry. That programme is
being carried out with the support of the World Food
Programme (WFP). It also serves as a model for a WFP
programme that purchases ingredients for town mayors
and mothers of families that are then used to distribute
prepared meals. Meal costs in that programme amount
to $.09 per meal, which means that it costs $18 to feed
a child during 200 school days.
We have also achieved considerable progress in
the area of institutional reform, thanks to an agreement
signed during the last electoral process by all political
parties in Honduras, under the aegis of the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) office in
Honduras. At the centre of that agreement is the fact
that an independent superior court of justice has been
established. In addition, the main State monitoring
body is now more independent, electoral bodies are
being made more professional and other reforms of
great importance for democracy are being carried out
to strengthen the trust of citizens in their institutions.
The UNDP has also been involved in our
programme to reduce corruption. We have established
an aggressive programme to delegate much of the
State's procurement to UNDP and other non-
governmental organizations in order to ensure honesty
and avoid the temptation of corruption.
My Government has therefore come to this world
forum with facts testifying to our desire to follow
through with our commitments to reduce inequality and
exclusion. However, Honduras is also here in the hope
that the slow pace of human development in the world
can, because it must, be overcome with increased and
heightened international solidarity. I therefore appeal
that the opportunities and benefits of globalization be
made more equitable and just for all peoples and nations.
In that regard, I should like to refer to the
Organization. The United Nations must increasingly be
the meeting place for cultures and civilizations.
Common effort is essential to achieve the purposes we
agreed upon in San Francisco, and which we enshrined
5

in the Charter. We need a more efficient Organization
to meet the challenges faced by peoples and to be able
to channel our differences towards the peaceful causes
we have agreed upon.
Undoubtedly, there are pressing situations that
require our attention. The situation in the Middle East
is of great concern to us. As in other countries, people
whose ancestors came from that part of the world live
peacefully in our country. They, along with all
Hondurans, want peace to be a reality for the Palestinian
and Jewish peoples, as well as for others in the region.
Hanging by a thread, peace in the Middle East is
precarious. It is our clear duty to strengthen that peace.
We are also concerned by clashes on the African
continent and by the hotbeds of tension that occasionally
flare up in Asia, whose consequences, were they to
develop further, could jeopardize the entire world.
Good sense must always prevail. It is for that
reason that we look forward to promising results from
the negotiating table. Peace in the world is our peace.
We are therefore committed to respecting and
promoting human rights. While respecting human
rights, Honduras is also committed to combating the
various scourges besetting our societies.
Today in Honduras we have a very serious
problem with juvenile crime, which has reached
alarming levels that affect all of our citizens. In that
regard, I would like to highlight one aspect of that
violence. A number of years ago, criminal activity led
to the tragic deaths of a number of young people under
the age of 18. Given that tragic situation, my
Government established a presidential commission for
the physical and moral protection of young people. It
also ordered an investigation of this phenomenon
whose results were published in September 2002. In
addition, we have set up a special unit to investigate
the death of minors, which ensures that such
reprehensible crimes are punished. In that connection,
Honduras has adopted the recommendations contained
in the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions of the Commission on
Human Rights, which has already begun to produce
very positive results.
The time is ripe to categorically reiterate that the
State of Honduras does not in any way tolerate, accept
or promote the killing of children and young people.
We have committed a considerable amount of our
limited resources to mitigate, and if possible eradicate,
this affront to human dignity. It is inconceivable for a
violent minority to take hostage and threaten the
peaceful and honest majority. Organized civil society is
working on behalf of the majority of Hondurans in that
effort, and together we are succeeding in reducing the
level of crime in its various forms.
In order to deal with that evil   which is closely
related to other forms of international crime, such as
drug trafficking and terrorism, whose causes extend far
beyond my homeland   my Government requires
understanding and brotherly support from the
international community. We also require that
understanding and support in order that we can reach
satisfactory agreements with the International Monetary
Fund, thereby making possible the comprehensive
implementation of the Stockholm Agenda for the
Reconstruction and Transformation of Central America.
Foreign debt relief must not continue to be mere words; it
must become a reality. With the resources freed up by
debt relief, my Government and the Governments to
follow will have on hand extremely valuable capital to
continue to combat poverty, illiteracy and HIV/AIDS
and to meet other goals of the Millennium agenda.
Cooperation and solidarity is an obligation, not
charity. It is an assumed commitment. Honduras hopes
that greater and immediate efforts will be made so that
the percentages agreed upon for cooperation will
become a reality. We also recognize the fact that
globalization, and specifically with regard to increased
international trade, holds out the promise of growth for
our peoples. We are involved in negotiating a free trade
agreement with the United States and Canada, and will
do the same with the European Union and others next
year. However, we would ask more developed countries
to allow our products access to their markets, which
now benefit from outdated protection schemes.
We also ask for the elimination of agricultural
subsidies, as well as for better benefits for our
producers, who today receive only a minimal part of
the value of the fruits of their labour. I would like to
refer to the case of coffee as an example of the lack of
equity in the added value of basic goods from our
region. The recent crisis in the price of coffee beans
has led to the unemployment of 600,000 persons in
Central America. Over 80,000 small producers, most of
whom are poor people from rural regions, carry out
coffee production in Honduras. That is an enormous
advantage during times when prices are good, because
it provides a very efficient mechanism for the social
6

distribution of income. However, the contrary is true
now that prices are at historical lows.
Six years ago, in 1997, it was estimated that the
total value of the retail coffee market was $30 billion.
Forty per cent of that amount, which is to say, $12
billion, was returned to producers. Today that market
price has more than doubled, to $65 billion. However,
producers are now getting less than half of what they
had been getting, namely, $5.5 billion; which means that
only 9 per cent of the final market value goes to
producers. I wish to reiterate that it is essential that we
redistribute the benefits of globalization and that we
increase solidarity.
That situation is not limited to just one of our
export products. The actual terms of trade for our main
export products conspire against democratic governance,
but the Honduran people require, as I have said, clear
actions to redistribute the benefits of globalization and
increase levels of solidarity.
International peace and security require all our
efforts. The attitude adopted on conflicts is very
important. Hence, Honduras is taking part in two cases
before the International Court of Justice. In both cases,
Honduras has come forward in peace to seek justice.
We are certain that in the case of El Salvador, there
will be a positive outcome to the 1992 ruling of the
Court. In the case of Nicaragua, we are also certain that
the definition the International Court adopts regarding
our respective maritime claims will be fully respected.
Honduras has always faithfully and strictly complied
with international rulings. Rest assured, Sir, of our firm
determination to respect in both these cases the
decisions of the International Court of Justice.
I cannot leave this rostrum of universal
conscience without expressing my congratulations to
you, Sir, on your election and wishing you every
success in your sensitive tasks.


I am greatly honoured to
address this distinguished gathering of the world's
leaders at the United Nations, a truly unique global
organization that is deeply engaged in the promotion of
human values and international peace and stability.
I would like to thank Mr. Jan Kavan for his
important contribution in the past year as President of
the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session and to
congratulate Mr. Julian Robert Hunte on his election to
the post of President of the General Assembly at the
fifty-eighth session. I wish him every success in
executing that function of great responsibility.
On behalf of all citizens of the Republic of
Macedonia, I would like to pay special tribute to the
United Nations and Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
who delivered an indeed inspiring speech yesterday, for
their relentless dedication and efforts in pursuing the
righteous causes of protecting human rights and
freedoms and safeguarding prosperity and security in
the world.
We certainly remember a great person, Mr. Sergio
Vieira de Mello, who paid the highest price for
pursuing the noble role of the United Nations in Iraq.
We fully support the goals of the international
community in Iraq: the achievement of a free and
sovereign Iraq governed by the people of Iraq for the
people of Iraq. However, that sovereignty must be
based on democracy, freedom and peaceful existence
with its neighbours. To achieve those goals as quickly
as possible, the United Nations must play a more
comprehensive and active role in the transition back to
Iraqi sovereignty. I would also like to take this
occasion to express our satisfaction with the work
carried out by the coalition forces in helping the Iraqi
people to rebuild their country after the decades of
disasters of Saddam Hussein's despotic regime.
Reforming the United Nations, particularly the
Security Council, and revitalizing the General
Assembly are of crucial importance to us all. My
Government firmly believes in the need to pursue those
goals in a consistent and more efficient way.
The Republic of Macedonia strongly believes the
United Nations involvement in various parts of the
world will essentially improve the responses of
democratically oriented Governments and reform-
minded people and will add to the overall level of
legitimacy of their actions. It is obvious that we need to
offer more vocal support to multilateralism when
dealing with the substantial issues on the international
agenda to which we are fully committed: the
eradication of poverty, the fight against the scourge of
HIV/AIDS around the world, conflict prevention and
the protection of the environment, among others.
The World Summit on the Information Society, to
be held in Geneva this year and in Tunis 2005, along
with two other summits held last year on financing for
development in Monterrey, Mexico, and sustainable
development in Johannesburg, can be regarded, in the
context of globalization and the overall development
process, as landmarks of a new approach in dealing
with the challenges of today's world. Within the
aforementioned framework, it is essential fully to
implement the Millennium Declaration as a key
document for peace, security, sustainable development
and prosperity.
The most serious contemporary threat to
humanity is identified and visible. It is the evil of
terrorism. The fight against terrorism has been and
must remain our highest priority. In this regard, it
would be immensely helpful to make a commitment to
reaching a consensus in relation to the remaining
7

disputed points in the process of drafting conventions
on international and nuclear terrorism.
Facing the challenge of the year 2001, we found a
way out by signing the Framework Agreement that
brought vital democratic processes back to our
institutions and re-established and reaffirmed
democratic procedures for addressing internal problems
of any kind. Today, I am very proud to say that I come
here in the same mood I was in three years ago when I
took part in the Millennium Summit   full of
optimism and truly convinced that, after the hard work
had been done, strategic issues of our future had been
solved, once and for all, upon a broad political, social
and interethnic consensus. Progress towards a real and
authentic integration of all ethnic communities in the
State structures is significant and has roots in our
centuries-old model and tradition of multiculturalism
and inter-ethnic coexistence.
In order to contribute in a constructive way to
creating a more positive picture of the region and
productive cooperation among nations, the Republic of
Macedonia launched numerous regional initiatives in
the context of integration into the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and the European Union. In parallel,
while pursuing very ambitious reform agendas, we
achieved an internal consensus about our foreign policy
priorities and realized that we will most successfully
leave behind the poor legacies of our unfortunate past
by promoting new substantial links among the people
who live in South-East Europe.
A month ago in Ohrid, we held a very successful
regional forum on dialogue among civilizations,
attended by numerous heads of State, other leaders and
scholars from all over the world, who spoke very
openly about the importance of having cultural
interchange as a permanent basis for the promotion of
continuous dialogue and cohabitation among peoples
and States. In the message adopted at the forum, all
participants agreed that a thorough and continuous
commitment would be needed by all to genuinely
transform our region and to defuse once and for all this
powder keg of Europe.
The Republic of Macedonia has built solid
cooperation with the United Nations Interim
Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and
developed a network of activities aimed at easing
communications and at liberalizing the movement of
people from both sides of the border. The Republic of
Macedonia welcomes the appointment of Harri Holkeri
as the new Special Representative of the Secretary-
General and gives him its full support. We are fully
supportive of the implementation of Security Council
resolution 1244 (1999) and the political position
declared by UNMIK calling for the fulfilment of the
standards of democracy and the application of the rule
of law before the onset of negotiations over the final
status of Kosovo. We express our deep concern over
the recent upsurge of inter-ethnic violence in Kosovo,
which only undermines the efforts of the international
community and the Kosovar people to fulfil the set
standards.
In the Balkans, we are seeing collaboration and
mutual respect emerging even between yesterday's
enemies and opposing factions. We are witnessing the
gradual but steady reconciliation of the nations. Last
but not least, important regional initiatives for free
trade, trade facilitation and building infrastructure are
connecting businesses and binding people in a
productive way, which helps to raise awareness of our
common future.
My country, the Republic of Macedonia, is an
indivisible part of these joint regional efforts to
transform our part of the continent into a decent place
to live in. To that end, we will need the understanding
and concrete support of the rest of the world
community, which should not neglect the call of
progressive people to join efforts to secure liberty. We
believe that the greatness of countries is dependent not
upon the size of their armies and the number of
weapons they possess, but upon the commitment and
dedication of their citizens to the noble ideas of
humanity and the legacy of our civilization. In this
tremendous task of preserving our common treasury
and of creating a better world for the generations to
come, we are more than willing to participate, because
we are all equal to each other, while contributing to the
common aim.
We are deeply concerned about the escalation of
violence in the Middle East. The parties need to
recommit themselves to the road map process, because
it is the only alternative that can bring security and
stability to Israelis and Palestinians alike. The
international community must step up its activities at
this extremely difficult juncture, ensuring that it
remains on the path of ending terrorism and occupation
and of establishing the State of Palestine, living side by
side with the State of Israel in peace and security.
8

On disarmament matters, bearing in mind our
immediate concerns over the problem of small arms
and light weapons, the Republic of Macedonia has
been an advocate of strong international action towards
preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade
in small arms and light weapons, since these pose a
serious threat not only to the security and stability of
my country, but also to the broader region. We
welcome the conclusion of the First Biennial Meeting
of States to Consider the Implementation of the United
Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and
Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in All its Aspects, held in July 2003, that
progress had been made worldwide within barely two
years of the adoption of the Programme of Action.
For the African countries, the main priority at this
moment is the fight against HIV/AIDS, a pandemic
that is taking a devastating toll on the African
population. The international community must work
hand in hand with the African Governments to defeat
this deadly disease. Africa must also work very hard to
achieve the strategic goals of the New Partnership for
Africa's Development in the areas of peace and
security, democracy, good governance, poverty
reduction and sound economic management.
I sincerely believe that we will find a common
language with regard to the issue of how to strengthen
our Organization and maintain its mission of peace,
prosperity, economic and social justice and human
rights.


I
should like first of all to express my heartiest
congratulations to Mr. Julian Hunte on his election as
President of the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth
session. I have no doubt that, under his able
stewardship, we will be able to achieve a great deal
during this important session. I should also like to
thank Mr. Jan Kavan for his dedication and hard work
during the last session.
The past year has witnessed the fall of a decades-
long dictatorship in Iraq. The Iraqi people have
regained their freedom and are now embarking upon
the arduous process of rebuilding their nation.
However, the auspicious political changes brought on
in Iraq will hold real meaning for the Iraqi people and
the regional order only once they are able to enjoy the
social economic benefits of a broadly based functional
democratic Government. To that end, the Republic of
Korea is now playing its part in the process of
rehabilitation and reconstruction.
38

The situation in today's Iraq is, however, less
than promising. The recent surge of terror and chaos
has served as a sobering reminder that winning the war
does not necessarily mean winning peace.
As the terrorist attack against the United Nations
headquarters in Baghdad last month so vividly
demonstrated, the prevalence of violence and terrorism
poses the most pressing challenge that Iraq has to
overcome in building a democratic, peaceful and
prosperous nation. The Republic of Korea strongly
condemns the atrocious act of terrorism against United
Nations personnel who came to Iraq for the sole
purpose of assisting the Iraqi people.
We recommend that the Secretary-General take
the necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of
the United Nations and its associated personnel, as well
as international humanitarian workers in Iraq, as they
carry out their noble duties.
Despite the persistence of conflict and turmoil,
the international community has continued during the
past year to make progress in strengthening the
universal values of human rights and democracy. The
spread of universal values in turn strengthens the
foundation for peace and prosperity around the world.
However, a world in which all peoples enjoy their
full rights and dignity is far from being a reality. We
need to make concerted efforts to promote human
dignity as the guiding precept of the world community.
The Republic of Korea remains firmly committed
to international efforts to advance democracy around
the world. In this vein, Seoul hosted the Second
Ministerial Conference of the Community of
Democracies in November last year, as well as the
Third Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and
Safeguarding Integrity in May this year. We will
continue to actively participate in efforts to promote
human rights, the rule of law and good governance.
The challenges facing us include fighting poverty
and achieving sustainable development. Poverty
undermines human dignity. It provides fertile ground
for conflict and dictatorship. The need for international
cooperation in this area has never been greater.
It is therefore tremendously important to achieve
the goals set at last year's International Conference on
Financing for Development and the World Summit on
Sustainable Development. The international community
must exercise collective wisdom to attain tangible results
in working toward these goals.
In recent years, the growing number of people
moving freely across borders has alerted us to the
increasing threats to public health. As demonstrated by
the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome epidemic,
infectious diseases have become a global issue from
which no country is immune. It is timely and fitting
that a high-level meeting was held earlier this week on
the follow-up to the outcome of the twenty-sixth
special session of the General Assembly on HIV/AIDS.
In our common fight against infectious diseases, I
would like to call your attention to the International
Vaccine Institute, which has been headquartered in
Seoul since 1997. This unique international
organization, devoted to the development of new
vaccines needed in developing countries, awaits the
support of the international community as it continues
to expand its activities to promote public health for the
less privileged of the world.
On the global security front, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its
potentially devastating linkage to terrorism loom as a
grave and perilous threat. The global nuclear non-
proliferation regime based on the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) currently faces
unprecedented challenges.
How we deal with these challenges will have a
decisive bearing on the future of not only the non-
proliferation regime, but also the international security
environment as a whole. Recent cases have proven that
the existing nuclear non-proliferation regime has
inherent limitations when it comes to dealing with
determined proliferators.
While reiterating the importance of achieving the
universality of the NPT and strengthening the
safeguards system through universal adherence to the
Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreements of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), we
underscore the need to close the loopholes in the
current regime.
In this regard, we stress the vital role of bilateral,
multilateral and regional approaches among countries
sharing common security interests in the reinforcement
and supplementing of the NPT. The role of export control
arrangements among potential suppliers of relevant
components and technologies for WMD is also crucial.
39

To that end, my Government hosted a plenary
meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group last May and
will also host a plenary meeting of the Missile
Technology Control Regime next year.
We further believe that the nuclear-weapon States
can do a great service to the cause of non-proliferation
by complying with their share of the nuclear
disarmament obligations under the NPT and by
working harder to achieve the early entry into force of
the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
The security of North-East Asia is currently
threatened by the possibility of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction. The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea's nuclear programme not only poses
a direct challenge to the security of the Korean
peninsula, but also endangers peace and stability in
North-East Asia and beyond. The Republic of Korea is
strongly committed to the denuclearization of the
Korean peninsula, and our position on the nuclear issue
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remains
clear and consistent.
First, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
must dismantle its nuclear programme in a complete,
irreversible and verifiable manner. Secondly, the
nuclear issue with the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea must be resolved in a peaceful and diplomatic
manner.
The heightening of military tension on the Korean
peninsula will be detrimental to all of the countries in
the region. Fifty years after the end of the Korean War,
our people still feel the pain. We must not allow such a
tragedy ever to be repeated.
By opting to combine efforts to resolve this
matter peacefully and diplomatically, the international
community has shown great wisdom in dealing with
this pressing and important matter. These efforts were
culminated in the six-party talks held in Beijing last
month.
Given the complexity of the issue, the multilateral
talks were significant, in that all participants were able
to reach consensus on certain principles that will guide
their future discussions.
Among these principles my Government
welcomes, in particular, the consensus on the necessity
of both the de-nuclearization of the peninsula and a
peaceful resolution through dialogue.
The tasks ahead will be to maintain the
momentum of dialogue and to refine these agreed
principles in greater detail. There will indeed be
difficulties in bridging the differences at future talks.
To overcome these obstacles a spirit of cooperation
must prevail, and any action that may aggravate the
situation must be avoided.
The success of the six-party talks would not only
bring the resolution of the nuclear issue regarding the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but should
also lead to the process of creating a durable peace on
the Korean peninsula.
More than 10 years after the end of the cold war,
the peninsula remains the last theatre of the cold war,
with 1.5 million heavily armed troops still pointing
guns across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that
separates the Republic of Korea in the south and the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the north. It
is time for this 50-year stand-off to give way to
reconciliation and cooperation. This process should be
cautiously managed and occur peacefully and gradually.
In this regard, I would like to draw on lessons
from the history of Europe that could be helpful in
defining the future of inter-Korean relations. As we all
know, in the century leading up to the Second World
War, relations between France and Germany were
characterized by the hostilities and confrontation of
three major wars.
After the Second World War, however, the
countries of Europe joined forces to help the two rivals
settle their differences and to pursue peace and
common prosperity through a network of economic
interdependence.
Thanks to the vision of Jean Monnet and Robert
Schuman, the European Coal and Steel Community
came into being and has since developed and expanded
to become the unprecedented, multilateral institution of
integration known today as the European Union.
To be sure, the case of the Korean Peninsula is
different from that of Europe. Nevertheless, as in the
case of Europe, I believe that a resolution to the
political conflict between the two sides of Korea could
be facilitated by economic interdependence.
President Roh Moo-hyun's policy toward the
North, aptly termed the policy for peace and prosperity,
is directly aimed at resolving the political confrontation
between the South and North through the deepening of
40

inter-Korean economic interdependence and with the
cooperation of the international community.
However, the nuclear programme of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea has emerged as
the most serious challenge to the process of
consolidating peace and prosperity on the Korean
Peninsula. We in the Republic of Korea sincerely hope
that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will
realize that it simply cannot achieve economic
prosperity without fully abandoning its intentions to
develop nuclear weapons.
We note that all participants at the Beijing six-
party talks acknowledged the need to address the
security concerns of the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea, and we ask the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea to make a wise and far-reaching
decision in this regard. We strongly hope that the
security concerns of the North, along with the nuclear
issue, will be dealt with in more detail at the next six-
party talks.
Once the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
abandons its nuclear weapon programme and seizes the
opportunity offered by the six-party talks to embark on
a path towards peace and prosperity, my Government
will take further steps towards bold inter-Korean
economic cooperation.
The international community will also provide
necessary humanitarian and economic assistance. The
positive impact of such cooperation and assistance will
resound not only on the Peninsula but throughout the
region and beyond.
In conclusion, the abandonment by the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea of its nuclear programme
through the six-party talks and the subsequent start of
the peace process on the Korean Peninsula will present
an unprecedented opportunity to dramatically enhance
international relations in East Asia.
In this regard, we look forward to the support of
all Member States of the United Nations for the success
of the six-party talks and the establishment of a lasting
peace on the Korean Peninsula.
The United Nations has much work to do in the
twenty-first century. The global body is our greatest
hope in our common efforts to make the world safer
and more prosperous, for us and for future generations.
I sincerely hope to see the United Nations renew itself
and achieve its goals through continuous reform that
will make it more effective and democratic. The
Republic of Korea pledges its abiding support to the
work of the United Nations in its noble mission for
mankind as a whole.