Last year, my Head of
State, Captain Valentine E. M. Strasser, acquainted this body
with the devastation visited on Sierra Leone as the result of
the civil war in Liberia. He described to this Assembly the
pain and agony that Sierra Leoneans have had to endure as
a result of that conflict, and the ramifications it portended
for regional peace and security.
Regrettably, I am constrained to inform this body, not
only that the war in Sierra Leone has persisted, but that the
lives of many innocent Sierra Leoneans have continued to be
lost. What we are witnessing today is the internal
40 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
displacement of more than 400,000 Sierra Leoneans and
more than 250,000 others who have had to seek refugee
status in neighbouring countries, not to mention the
devastation caused to the national economy.
Thus, with our territory devastated and our economy
nearly destroyed, it is understandable that my country is so
anxious that peace should return to Liberia. Without peace,
Sierra Leoneans cannot embark on the economic
reconstruction of their country. Sierra Leoneans are also
hopeful that if peace should return, we can start picking up
the pieces of what is left of our country and get on with our
lives, and that the massive diversion of our resources to
prosecute a rebel war will no longer be necessary. It is also
our hope that with the conflict behind us, the Government of
the National Provisional Ruling Council will be able to give
its undivided attention to the essential task of nation-
building. We therefore renew our appeal, from this rostrum,
for timely humanitarian assistance for the hundreds of
thousands of our fellow citizens who have been displaced
and made refugees, for it is only with such help that they
can start their lives anew.
The socio-economic assistance of this Organization will
also be necessary for our post-war reconstruction and
rehabilitation efforts. Our cri du coeur is for the
international community to provide the requisite support and
assistance for a country desperately in need, through no fault
of its own; a country that has acted as its brother’s keeper,
in the true meaning of that expression, and on behalf of the
international community to bring an end to bloodshed and
help restore law and order in Liberia.
It is, therefore, our hope that the latest Cotonou
Agreement on that conflict will continue to pave the path to
peace in Liberia. It was my Government’s expectation that
by now, with the assistance of the Security Council, there
would have been a rapid establishment and deployment of
the United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL)
and also meaningful support for the Trust Fund established
by the Secretary-General for the continued engagement of
the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) Military Observer Group (ECOMOG) in
Liberia.
Part of that peace plan calls for the establishment of a
buffer zone along our borders to prevent the infiltration into
our territory of men and matériel from Liberia. In the name
of regional peace and security, we call on this Organization
to give its full support to our request. International help for
ECOMOG is particularly necessary when one considers that
for the past two years, West African countries have been
shouldering the burden of maintaining peace in Liberia
without much outside help, in spite of the enormous
problems facing them individually and collectively. In a
region which contains 10 of the least developed and poorest
nations, it is obvious that sooner, rather than later, the West
African subregion will not be able to continue with the
ECOMOG burden without such outside help.
I would like to issue a note of warning here: the
Cotonou Agreement, in our view, offers the last chance to
bring peace to Liberia. If it should fail, we fear that that
country might become another Somalia. Hence, the support
of the United Nations remains indispensable. We therefore
hope that Member States will contribute, and contribute
generously, to the Trust Fund. Doing so would save lives.
Before continuing with my line of thought, on behalf of
the Sierra Leone delegation and on my own behalf, I should
like to convey warm greetings to Ambassador Insanally on
his unanimous election to preside over our deliberations
during the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly.
It is also fitting that I express my delegation’s sincere
appreciation to His Excellency Mr. Stoyan Ganev, his
predecessor, for the able manner in which he executed his
task and for his personal exertions in the advancement of the
noble objectives of our Organization.
Our distinguished Secretary-General has, stoically and
with dedication and determination, continued his yeoman’s
service on behalf of us all. We congratulate him warmly on
his latest report.
I should also like to extend the best wishes of the
Government and the people of Sierra Leone to the friendly
Governments and peoples of those countries that have joined
us in this Assembly as full Member States. We have no
doubt that their admission has not only enhanced the goal of
universality; with their new energies they will effectively
contribute to our quest for a more peaceful world.
We believe that our Organization is at a crossroad, that
what we say and commit ourselves to during this session
will have serious implications on the shape of things to
come, and that the rebirth of this Organization will require
learning from the lessons of the recent past and adjusting our
vision for the future.
Sierra Leone had sincerely hoped that the end of the
cold war era would usher in a golden millennium of peace
and prosperity for all. Unfortunately, however, we have
witnessed a series of situations all over the world that have
Forty-eighth session - 28 September l993 41
given rise to a more violent and insecure international
environment. We are faced with conflicts and misery that
have adversely influenced the lives of vast sectors of
humanity, and we now feel an even deeper sense of
helplessness and despair that makes us almost nostalgic for
the order and logic of bygone days. But nostalgia has no
purpose if it serves only to pander to escapism, without
using the lessons of the past to guide our future courses of
action.
Let me now turn to an issue that continues to deeply
concern us all, namely, peace-keeping. The principle and
efficiency of peace-keeping are not in question, but already
expenditures for peace-keeping have several times over
outstripped the Organization’s regular budget. More
troubling is the prospect that such expenditures will soon
exceed resources committed to development since the
establishment of the United Nations. We sincerely believe
that the time has come when more attention should be given
to conflict prevention and resolution.It would serve our
purpose much better and cost this Organization much less if
conflicts were contained and resolved before reaching the
point of open hostilities, when situations are more difficult
to control. We can catalogue a series of lost opportunities
of which one glaring example is the Liberian conflict. Let
us, from this point forward, give more attention to the
prevention of conflict rather than having to field troops in
various theatres of war at exorbitant cost. Recent events
have proved that we cannot afford to risk the lives of our
men in the field in situations that could have been prevented.
Let me reiterate Sierra Leone’s firm conviction and
commitment to the peace-keeping operations that are now
taking place throughout the world. We deplore the acts of
those who have made peace-keepers objects of their
violence, and we salute the gallant men and women who are
acting on behalf of us all.
However, our perseverance in the pursuit of global
peace and in peace-keeping will not reap the desired harvest
if the present proliferation of arms and ammunition to
theatres of conflict continues. As we all are aware, many
third world countries where military conflicts are raging
today do not manufacture arms. On the other hand, they
continue to be the recipients of some of the deadliest
weapons. Such weapons, when supplied to the contending
factions, be they rebels or others, have as their main victims
innocent civilians. Today, we are witnessing carnage and
loss of human life, as a result of the use of weapons
acquired by various rebel movements in Africa from arms
manufacturers over the years.
It therefore becomes obvious that, if we are to put a
stop to such blood-letting and human carnage, further
stringent measures must be imposed on the sale and
proliferation of arms and ammunition. In our view, into this
category falls the proliferation and ever-increasing use of
mines and other explosive devices in the third world which
have taken a heavy toll in human life, especially innocent
civilians. Many civilians continue to die because of the
indiscriminate manner in which these mines have been
planted and used by rebel forces ever since they were
acquired from unknown sources. We therefore welcome the
initiative taken by the European Community to inscribe an
item on the agenda of this session of the Assembly to
address such issues. We believe that the support of the
international community is indispensable to dealing with the
disastrous consequences of the presence of such mines.
While still on the issue of conflicts, we wish to reiterate
our support for the recently concluded International
Conference for the Protection of War Victims and its
recommendations. We are firmly convinced that
humanitarian law must be made completely universal, widely
known and fully respected, and must be extended to fully
cover non-international conflicts.
My delegation continues to watch with interest the
political developments gaining momentum in South Africa.
Yet, much as the ongoing negotiations offer hope for a
resolution of this problem, we are deeply saddened that the
continuing violence, directed especially against innocent
people - the majority of whom are blacks - goes on
undiminished. Violence, in whatever form, is an abhorrence,
but its pursuit by unscrupulous groups and individuals to
reap political capital, at a time when patience, courage,
commitment and tolerance are required, can only give us all
cause for concern.
We therefore wish to appeal to all, regardless of
affiliation, to exercise forbearance and to renounce the use
of violence. But, more so, we call on all Governments and
political leaders to use their influence with their supporters
to prevail upon them not to threaten the democratization
process and to work constructively for a better South Africa.
This appeal goes also to all emerging democracies.
Now that the goal of majority rule is in sight, it is time
for blacks, who have for long suffered under the odious
system of apartheid, to close their ranks in solid unity so
that, together, they may be able to let the new South Africa
create an impact on the international scene, for their own
benefit and the benefit of all South Africans.
42 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
We appeal to black South Africans to forge greater
unity and to be conscious of their responsibility to disprove
the assertion of the apologists for apartheid that blacks are
incapable of ruling themselves. For it is only when they act
in unison and stop the violence that they will be able to
enjoy the fruits of their freedom struggle, which they have
endured for so long and are, at last, about to win.
Sierra Leone has for many years supported a
comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict, based on
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
We see the recent mutual recognition of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel as an extremely
positive step towards the full restoration of peace in the
Middle East.
We also encourage all the parties to the ongoing
negotiations concerning other facets of the Middle East
problem to demonstrate the same spirit of accommodation in
the interests of their own people, who for decades have
known nothing but strife, conflict, suffering and hatred, and
in the interests of peace and of mankind as a whole.
Sierra Leone supports the territorial integrity of Kuwait.
I would now like to turn to another important matter in
this Organization: that is the functioning of the Security
Council.
Undoubtedly, just as a growing number of nations
continue to encourage greater participation by their citizens
in the attainment of the ends of the State, so must this
national awareness of the need for political harmony and
justice be a paradigm instructive to the Security Council,
which, as the primary organ responsible for the maintenance
of international peace and security, should be perceived as
legitimate in its decision-making process and, thus, should
embrace the views of a wider section of the international
community.
It is necessary at this juncture to express our concerns -
concerns that are shared by many small States Members of
this Organization - regarding the willingness of the
international community, but more so its major players, to
ensure respect for the principles enshrined in our Charter.
It is clear that the time has come to articulate the normative
values that are to be pursued in guaranteeing the security of
those who are not in a position to undertake their own
defence and to reassure them that their reliance on the
United Nations as the guarantor of their sovereignty against
violations by stronger nations has not been misplaced.
The failure to halt aggression in some recent cases has
seriously undermined the foundations of the common
security arrangement that the end of the cold-war presaged.
The repeated indecision with which aggression in different
parts of the world has been confronted has set a dangerous
precedent by undermining the confidence of small nations in
the Organization’s protective capacity and by encouraging
automatic resort to self-defence, with a concomitant increase
in arms build-up. It also goes some way to assuaging the
residual fears that perpetrators of massive violations of
human rights, even genocide, may have had that their
despicable actions will somehow be met with purpose and
resolve by the international community.
In the coming days, there must be a firm, unequivocal,
timely and balanced response from the international
community to threats to and breaches of international peace
and security if the Bosnian experience is not to become a
feature of relations between States. It is undesirable to allow
the view to prevail that the international community is more
disposed to act forcefully in certain instances than in others.
It is in this vein that we must express our concern over the
apparent deterioration of the security situation in Somalia.
We express the belief that, despite the provocation, a
distinction must continue to be made between the Somali
people, the warlords and gunmen. We firmly reject those
who want to impose tyranny on the Somali people, and we
express our heartfelt condolences to the families of those
gallant peace-keepers who have fallen while on duty in
Somalia.
The World Conference on Human Rights held in
Vienna in June this year was a landmark event which was
able to overcome the numerous challenges that it faced.
That Conference addressed, inter alia, such fundamental
human rights as the rights of women and children and
reaffirmed the universality of human rights and the
legitimate role of the international community in protecting
these rights worldwide. It also reaffirmed the importance of
economic, social and cultural rights and the right to
development, and it adopted several practical steps to
promote and protect human rights in both private and public
life. The challenge now facing us is to implement the
recommendations of that Conference.
We would not like to reopen the debate regarding
human rights standards. The United Nations established
those standards more than 40 years ago. What is important
is that human rights should remain universal and
non-selective. Human beings all over the world, irrespective
of their race, religion, gender or class, must enjoy equal
rights and protection.
Forty-eighth session - 28 September l993 43
We see the re-emergence of racism and ethnic conflict
at its genocidal worst today in various parts of the world.
The United Nations must assume a much stronger role in
trying to prevent and minimize the suffering caused to
people who are subjected to the pain and intimidation of this
dark display of man’s inhumanity to man. Regrettably, in
many lands today, on every continent and among peoples of
every race, colour, language and religion, conflicts erupt in
unspeakable violence. As has been observed, ethnic tensions
have become the racial fault line in widely diverse societies
all over the globe - the advanced, the developing, the
relatively stable and the unstable alike. We must redouble
our efforts and guard against such dangers.
Sierra Leone continues to be concerned by the problem
of refugees and displaced persons, particularly as we
ourselves have become victims of such a phenomenon.
Apart from the effort to prevent and avert the flow of
refugees, if our people are to be able to return to their
communities, remain there and rebuild their lives they must
have what the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees calls "emergency development funds" to meet their
basic needs in the areas of health care, education and
employment. While acknowledging the generosity that the
international community has shown in the past in respect of
refugees worldwide, we appeal to that community in general,
and to the major donors in particular, not to give in to "aid
fatigue" but to meet the urgent and felt needs of their
brethren and sisters, many of whom have found themselves
refugees overnight through no fault of their own.
Sierra Leone therefore urges the international
community to look at these ever-present challenges: how to
assist uprooted people, particularly in the context of conflict
and grinding poverty; how to enable the displaced to return
home in safety and dignity and rebuild their lives; and how
to prevent and solve refugee problems.
However, while providing help and assistance to
mitigate the refugee problem, we remain convinced that
unless and until the international community can overcome
the scourge of poverty, that problem will remain insoluble
and be constantly with us. It is therefore our fervent hope
that, even at this late hour, renewed impetus will once again
be found to prevent and eradicate this condition of human
misery.
The necessity of guaranteeing the foundation of a
common security evidently goes beyond the reduction or
elimination of military conflicts and embraces human
security as a whole. Indeed, the fortunes of many a society
will hinge on this, as in many developing countries the root
cause of political and social upheaval or military conflict
remains grinding poverty. Without the eradication of this
scourge, the prospect for human development will remain
bleak. Regrettably, for many of our countries in Africa,
especially the least developed among us, two years after the
adoption of the New Agenda for the Development of Africa
in the 1990s our experience has been one of disappointment
and frustration. Even though most African countries have
carried out the structural adjustment programmes and put in
place democratic structures, the development partnership
promised by the New Agenda has not been forthcoming.
With few exceptions, the resources necessary to get the New
Agenda implemented have not been made available.
Today poverty and underdevelopment continue to
plague countries like mine in sub-Saharan Africa despite the
commendable efforts of this Organization to solve some of
these palpable problems. It is a matter of regret that the
new world order seems to have relegated the economic and
developmental needs and problems of Africa to the lower
rungs on its list of priorities. The New Agenda for the
Development of Africa in the 1990s is failing because of a
lack of funding and support from the international
community. The implementation of this New Agenda
requires the full participation of the international community,
especially donor Governments and organizations and
programmes of the United Nations system. It is therefore of
the utmost importance and urgency that economic, technical
and development assistance be provided to Africa by the
international community, which unfortunately has not
responded sufficiently to our needs. We therefore call on
our partners in development to give us all the support
necessary to make the reforms that we have carried out
successful and the sacrifices we have made not a mere waste
of time.
Our present situation also underscores an urgent need
for support for the effective functioning of the proposed
African Economic Community, which is designed to enhance
economic integration and cooperation in Africa. Financial
and technical assistance must be provided to African
regional and subregional organizations for them to be able
to overcome the socio-economic challenges facing them.
We fully accept that responsibility for Africa’s development
rests with us Africans, but it is obvious that for us to be able
to achieve and sustain the goal of development, particularly
in the face of all the obstacles against us, including highly
unfavourable terms of trade, we must receive much stronger
support from the international community. With such
support, the vast potential of the continent will be properly
utilized so that we do not miss yet again an opportunity to
provide a catalyst for Africa’s meaningful contribution to the
44 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
growing global economy from which we all must benefit.
It is for this reason that we look forward to the forthcoming
Tokyo International Conference on African Development,
which should provide yet another opportunity for committed
international support for Africa’s development efforts. We
also look forward to a balanced and successful outcome of
the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and an
expansion of world trade, improved commodity pricing,
greater market access and non-restrictive trade practices that
will work for the benefit of all countries, especially those in
the process of development.
The trauma that many African societies are
experiencing daily in the fight against poverty, malnutrition
and disease must not be allowed to become a way of life.
The improvement of our people’s lot is as much to be
realized through aid flows as it is to be guaranteed by
long-term measures aimed at addressing the heavy debt
burden, discriminatory trade practices and depressed
commodity prices from which so many of us suffer. We in
Africa would dearly love to be able to lift ourselves by our
own bootstraps but we cannot do so when our bootstraps are
firmly in the hands of others.
We face a most painful dilemma, wherein we find
ourselves in a position from which we presently seem unable
to influence the forces that shape our destinies. But the
problems we encounter as developing countries should not
deter us from forging ahead to find new ways to
development and prosperity. The experience gained by such
countries as Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and
other South-East Asian countries clearly shows that success
can be gained in the long run where there is sacrifice,
determination and hard work.
This notwithstanding, Africa’s underdevelopment
remains unique, and unless the international community
applies creative and effective comprehensive measures, such
as debt-for-development swaps and other debt relief
measures, the solution to Africa’s economic crisis,
particularly for countries in the least developed category,
will continue to be illusory. In a world where the gap
between the rich and the poor countries is growing wider
every day, the need for economic and technical cooperation
between developing countries cannot be overstated.
With regard to the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), we welcome the
establishment of the Commission on Sustainable
Development as a functional Commission of the Economic
and Social Council. What now remains to be put in place is
the practical implementation of the Commission’s mandate
to ensure the effective follow-up of UNCED. Sierra Leone
welcomes the decision to convene a Global Conference on
the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States in April 1994.
At the recent United Nations Conference on Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the plight of
many coastal States, including mine, was highlighted
regarding the lack of an effective monitoring, control and
surveillance system that can be maintained on a sustained
basis in the face of the continuing indiscriminate advance of
certain distant-water fishing nations, some of which not only
fish the straddling stocks outside the jurisdiction area, but
enter and violate the territorial rights of our countries. Even
the fleets of those nations which obtain relevant licenses to
fish do not declare the correct catches for reliable data
records. Consequently, the true state of exploitation of the
stocks within the national jurisdiction of most of our
countries is not accurately known, and so Sierra Leone,
despite its location in one of the most fertile areas in terms
of marine living resources, realizes only a miniscule amount
from these resources as a result of the activities of the
distant-water fleets.
This present state of affairs is certainly untenable and
should not remain unchecked. The exploitation of our
meagre resources by larger nations and bodies taking
advantage of our technological weaknesses can only worsen
our economic situation. These wanton fishing practices also
threaten to deplete the fishing grounds of our nations and to
become great environmental hazards. I therefore wish to
reiterate the support expressed by the Sierra Leone
delegation for the conclusions of that Conference, which we
hope will bring about a radical change in the present
exploitation of our marine resources. I hope our experts will
soon be able to sit down with experts of the United Nations
to work out modalities that will ensure the equitable and
judicious exploitation of our marine resources.
Looking back at the progress accomplished by mankind
over the past few decades of its quest for peace, security and
social progress, we have to admit that the results achieved
have been mixed.
A few years ago, for example, the world watched with
hope and expectation as nations and societies were infused
with a new energy which held out the promise of a new,
dynamic era in which our societies would at last realize the
potential for peace and the global environment would be
transformed for the better. Then, many of us were
convinced that, if history had taught us anything, it had
impressed on us that this journey’s success could not endure
Forty-eighth session - 28 September l993 45
unless we divested ourselves of the old flawed and
discredited formulae in which the age behind us had been
embedded. It was our hope that, phoenix-like, we would
rise from the ashes of unfulfilled dreams and start on a
journey towards the fulfilment of our aspirations to a golden
age.
Today, some way into that journey, we have begun to
wonder whether that dream was not a mirage, whether the
new reality on which so much depends will be shaped with
the good will and cooperation of all nations, big and small
alike.
In the past, many of us called for the emerging order to
be nurtured and shaped by the joint will of the international
community as a whole, mindful as we were of the need to
anchor this new direction on principles we all believed in
and subscribed to. We are still of that view. Yet, though
the recent months have witnessed a process of revitalization
in the Organization’s responsibilities for crisis management
and its larger engagement with the maintenance of
international peace and security, we are increasingly
concerned about emerging trends that may not augur well for
the global political and socio-economic transformation we all
anticipate.
The assurance of international security cannot succeed
for long unless we are able, as an Organization, to forge
international consensus among all Members on measures that
are of primary importance to us all. New energy should
impel us to find the source of today’s problems, so as to
mitigate the disastrous conditions under which a large
segment of mankind continues to live. New impetus should
be given to breaking the constraints that for so long kept us
from gaining access to those in need and finding solutions
to their problems.
It is our fervent hope that all of us, with new vision and
commitment, will accomplish these goals so that we may
attain the new world order that was conceived within the
parameters of the ideals of this Organization.


It gives me pleasure to start out by congratulating you on
your election as President of the General Assembly of the
United Nations at its forty-eighth session. I should also like
to pay tribute to your predecessor, His Excellency Mr.
Stoyan Ganev, for his able stewardship of the previous
session of the Assembly.
Also, I should like to set on record our appreciation for
the outstanding efforts of the Secretary-General, His
Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to attain the goals of
the United Nations and to fulfil the growing responsibilities
entrusted to the world body in behalf of world peace. We
do note that the changes sweeping across the world today
impose upon the United Nations additional responsibilities
which the President, Government and people of Lebanon
view with hope and optimism. Therefore, we are all called
upon to provide the United Nations with the necessary
means for fulfilling its expanding mandates. By the same
token, the United Nations should for its part streamline its
operations in order to adapt to the demands of the future.
I take this opportunity to welcome the Member States
which have recently been admitted to the membership of the
United Nations. This is yet another indication of the
universality of this Organization and a confirmation of the
growing need for it.
As the current decade brings us closer to the end of
another century in the history of mankind, we now have a
clearer picture of the issues and concerns that dominate the
thinking of the peoples of the world. In dealing with the
spectrum of these questions, we need to rely first and
foremost on rational thinking. The wealth of experience
drawn from the lessons learned from the numerous conflicts
that have taken place throughout this century has taught us
that the path of peace is, in the final analysis, the optimal
course to follow, as all other avenues have proven futile.
The era of a divided world based on blocs and polarization,
which severely strained international relations and
precipitated crises for many decades, is now over.
Therefore, the world is now ready to develop a universal
vision of mankind based on a universal code of ethics and
set of human rights. The United Nations Organization,
which has long suffered from rivalries that paralysed it and
placed severe constraints on its potential, is increasingly
called upon, in an unprecedented fashion, to engage in
peace-keeping activities. Despite the fact that its current
operations are somewhat different from the conventional
functions originally envisioned for the Organization, its
operations demonstrate the growing need for this world body
to lend confidence and credibility to the multinational effort
in dealing with challenges and conflicts in a fair and sound
manner.
We believe that understanding between States and
peoples hinges upon the preservation of democracy and
human rights. Such understanding would in turn contribute
significantly to the elimination of regional and global
disputes, in keeping with a major principle set forth in the
Charter of the United Nations. Here, I would be remiss if
I did not recall Lebanon’s contribution to the drafting of the
Charter as well as of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, for Lebanon was a member of the Special
Committee entrusted with the drafting of both instruments.
Lebanon’s well-known tradition of firm commitment to
the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights, and
its success in upholding those principles despite the dangers
that threatened it for many years, remains faithful to the
basic pillars upon which our pluralistic, open and creative
society rests. Lebanon, which has withstood the trying years
of its plight, is now facing its critical challenges with the
vigour of renewed and consolidated national unity. It has
12 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
incorporated those principles into the fabric of its identity.
Thus, the new constitution proclaims that Lebanon is
"Arab in identity and affiliation, a founder and active
member of the League of Arab States, fully committed
to its covenants; and a founding and active member of
the United Nations Organization, fully committed to its
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The State is an embodiment of all these
principles, in all areas and spheres wherever they apply,
without exception."
In view of its singular experience, Lebanon deserves
your support and a pledge from the world community not
only to provide material assistance and help in the
reconstruction of what the civil war has destroyed, but to
bolster the Lebanese system. The need for the example set
by this system is all the more urgent in our world today,
given the many ethnic and religious conflicts currently
raging in various regions.
Lebanon, with its time-honoured tradition of
coexistence, moderation and tolerance emanating from these
lofty human values, can indeed be a living example to those
even in advanced societies who are searching for a
successful formula for social harmony. This is especially
true now that Lebanon has put its tragedy behind it and
embarked on a course of accord and concord.
The great majority of the Lebanese lived through the
years of war and bore the brunt of its devastation without
having any real belief in bellicosity or its causes.
Throughout the war, some one million students continued to
attend their schools and colleges as if to express, through
pursuit of education, their rejection of war. The same
majority continued to discharge its duties towards society
and the State in many parts of the country. Even ordinary
civilian crimes did not rise noticeably during the war.
All this confirms that the Lebanese, who settled this
problem a long time ago, not only in texts and precedents,
but also in their daily routines and life-styles, are proud to
be able to present to the world, after their long suffering, a
true example fashioned from first-hand experience of the
resilience of human nature with its wealth of intellect and
vivid diversity.
In our common interest we must all seek to safeguard
such a legacy and protect it from violence. This is
particularly true in the case of the Middle East region, which
has traditionally and historically suffered from the
interference of foreign powers and the struggles of interest
and conflict that transcended national frontiers, and even the
entire region, to pose a threat to world peace in its entirety.
Given the magnitude and intensity of the conflicts that
have ravaged Lebanon soil, the survival of our country
proves that the Lebanese nation is too strong to be
eliminated and that it has long-established traditions that will
stand the test of time. The people of Lebanon has
demonstrated great stamina and resilience in the face of
overwhelming odds.
Lebanon is committed to realizing its aspirations and
determined to achieve progress within the context of the
opportunities offered by the modern world. If the armed
conflicts and hostilities of recent decades have drained many
of our resources, our potential and our capabilities must
henceforth be channelled to face up to and overcome the
common challenges that confront mankind everywhere.
To this end, the Lebanese Government is striving to
restore Lebanon to its special position in the community of
civilized nations. The emphasis is on achievements that will
make the Lebanese individual capable of facing the future.
Lebanon considers that its major loss, perhaps, has been the
migration of many of its most talented and highly skilled
young people. One of our major concerns now is to create
favourable conditions that will attract them back. It is our
hope that our human resources will be highly instrumental
in expediting the reconstruction of the better society we all
aspire to see: a society that enjoys peace, democracy and
prosperity.
Lebanon, whose people suffered enormous hardship
during the dark years of war, fully recognizes and
appreciates the various tragedies and pains that afflict some
parts of the world today. As we reaffirm our permanent
commitment to peace and to the Charter of the United
Nations, and to the tenets that emanate from them, we stress
our adherence to and respect for an integrated system of
values which includes human rights, freedom and dignity.
Indeed, this should be the ultimate goal of every undertaking
and endeavour.
Early on, the United Nations took cognizance of the
situation in Lebanon, as attested to by the many resolutions
adopted by the Security Council on the Lebanese crisis.
Some people may not be aware that between 1968 and 1993
more than 80 United Nations resolutions and statements on
Lebanon were adopted. This is a large number of
resolutions in comparison with other crises. Lebanon has an
imposing file indeed with both the General Assembly and
the Security Council. If the sheer volume of United Nations
Forty-eighth session - 30 September l993 13
official records on Lebanon is compared with that of the
documents submitted to ordinary courts of law, it will
become clear instantly that, on the scales of international
justice, the weight of evidence tips the scales in favour of
Lebanon. Justice and law have been, and continue to be, on
the side of Lebanon. Notwithstanding, the Lebanese have
always been deeply disappointed by the fact that political
interests have continued to outweigh justice and the rule of
law, and led to the application of double standards regardless
of the scores of resolutions that have been adopted right here
in the United Nations in support of the legitimate demands
of Lebanon, a country that sought effective recourse from
the United Nations.
All those United Nations resolutions have called for
ending violence in Lebanon and for respecting its
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and thus have reaffirmed
the country’s political independence and national
sovereignty. Therefore, we must give credit to the
Organization for its initial favourable response in regard to
Lebanon, especially in terms of the need to implement
Security Council resolution 425 (1978) and the establishment
of the United Nations peace-keeping force in southern
Lebanon. I avail myself of this opportunity to recognize the
effective role played by the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL). May I pay tribute to the many United
Nations personnel who have made sacrifices, including the
loss of life, in the line of duty in southern Lebanon. To
those contingents and to the friendly countries that have
contributed troops, we express our deep gratitude.
However, as we look forward to the future - having
taken firm and crucial steps towards restoring normalcy, with
the substantial and effective help of Syria in disarming the
militias, ending the internecine fighting and restoring the
authority of the State, we feel we have the right to call upon
the United Nations at a time when its role is being redefined
in consonance with current global changes, to act decisively
in Lebanon. More specifically, we expect the United
Nations to work forcefully for the implementation of
Security Council resolution 425 (1978), and to ensure
Israel’s total withdrawal to the internationally recognized
boundaries. It is not an overstatement to point out that
peace in Lebanon has been, and continues to be, the sine
qua non for stability in the Middle East and for the
establishment of a just and comprehensive peace in the
entire region. Any peace arrangements will remain fragile
and incomplete should the international community choose
to tolerate the continuation of a situation that threatens
Lebanon with potentially explosive disputes.
The Lebanese have agreed by consensus on a new
formula for national reconciliation, which was worked out in
1989 at Taif in Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
played the principal role in working out that formula, which
later became Lebanon’s constitution. Furthermore, Saudi
Arabia, in keeping with a long-standing tradition, together
with other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council
continues to donate substantial assistance towards the
reconstruction of Lebanon. With the same goal in mind, the
Lebanese Government undertook the implementation of a
rehabilitation programme in all spheres of life and in an
unmistakable atmosphere of international confidence.
Gradually, Lebanon began to restore its traditional, regional
and international role. This permitted Lebanese energies to
be unleashed, and gave rise to creative initiatives for
reconstructing and developing the country.
In all this, Lebanon has faced up to occupation and
violence, by adopting a stance anchored in the Charter of the
United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Our country, which draws its strength from the
steadfastness and resilience of its people, has reaffirmed time
and again its right to live in dignity and to ensure the
freedom of its territory. The Lebanese Government is
heavily engaged in the reconstruction effort and the
enhancement of civilian life in order to promote stability
throughout the region.
Israeli acts of aggression, which have clear objectives
and purposes, have been met by the Lebanese with a high
sense of responsibility, solidarity and internal unity. Our
unchanging, spontaneous response is insistence on peace and
on securing the security and progress of our country, which
has paid dearly for having been used as an arena to settle
accounts among conflicting parties.
An insistence on peace was the driving force that
prompted the Lebanese to return immediately to their
villages and farms following the most recent Israeli
aggression. They pitched tents in front of their demolished
homes, thus demonstrating their deep attachment to the land
and their loyalty to the territory and its bounties.
The true nature of the Al-Khiyam detention camp,
where Israeli military authorities hold more than 200
Lebanese citizens without any legal grounds, is well known
to United Nations officials and to Member States. Indeed,
the case of those detainees is common knowledge in the
international media. Moreover, 100 other Lebanese
prisoners are being held in various prisons inside Israel.
Despite the repeated appeals by the Commission on Human
Rights and Amnesty International and the demands made by
14 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
the Lebanese Government and human-rights societies in
Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world, the Israeli
authorities refuse to release them. Furthermore, for more
than eight years, Israel has denied the International
Committee of the Red Cross as well as family members
access to visit those prisoners.
It is high time indeed for Israel to respond to the
appeals of international bodies by releasing those hostages
promptly, thus putting an end to their drawn out suffering
and the agony of their families. In fact, Israel is duty-bound
to do so in compliance with the relevant international treaties
and conventions.
The positive developments now taking place daily in
Lebanon are the most articulate expression of the Lebanese
refusal to permit their country once again to be a victim of
the Middle East conflict at a time when the winds of peace
are starting to blow towards the region. Lebanon yearns for
peace and has consistently opted for peace throughout its
history. In fact, Lebanon can thrive only in an atmosphere
of peace and stability. Indeed, its role in its own region and
in the world at large cannot be performed in the midst of
violence and war. Lebanon believes that the Middle East
region, if it enjoys a just and comprehensive peace, will be
in a position to contribute incalculable services to mankind.
All the peoples of the region, including the Lebanese, have
enormous potential, backed by a great cultural heritage and
diverse capabilities. Energies and resources that have long
been squandered on war could then be harnessed in the
service of social and economic development as we stand on
the threshold of the twenty-first century with all its promise
of achievements to come.
Against this backdrop, and in view of the regional and
international developments that have made it possible to
initiate negotiations with Israel, Lebanon participated in
those negotiations two years ago despite the fact that parts
of its territory have been under occupation as a result of an
act of aggression committed by Israel in 1978 - and not
because of a state of war with Israel. Lebanon’s just case
firmly rests on a series of United Nations resolutions
adopted over the past 15 years, all of which demand Israel’s
withdrawal and define the necessary means and modalities
required to achieve it.
If Israel uses the security of its northern border as a
pretext, we would argue that all the measures taken by
Israel, including the occupation of territory, have contributed
to the disruption of security. In fact, Lebanon and the
international community are more than ever convinced that
the only way to ensure regional security is to end the
occupation of Lebanese territory and desisting from
tampering with the security and safety of its population.
Forty-five years of unabated disputes, conflicts and
wars have created certain outlooks. Changing such outlooks
will require great political courage and deep understanding
on the part of those who are interested in peace. Large-scale
direct support will also be needed, along with innovative
thinking to shake ourselves loose from traditional frames of
mind.
More than ever before, the Middle East sorely needs
brave, innovative approaches if it is to attain a firm and
lasting peace. Lebanon, which is participating in the peace
talks in order to liberate its lands and lay the foundations of
a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, wishes
to point out the following:
First, Lebanon demands the total withdrawal of Israel
from all occupied Lebanese territories under Security
Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978). The
Lebanese armed forces will assume full responsibility for
security in the southern and western regions should Israel
implement the provisions of those two resolutions.
Secondly, Lebanon, which believes in and seeks peace,
would be among the first beneficiaries of a just peace as it
expands to encompass the entire region. Along with its
Arab brethren, Lebanon will be an active participant in
making peace and in supporting its development and
advocating its consolidation as the underpinning of life in the
Middle East.
Thirdly, Lebanon which has had very painful
experiences as a result of the policy of the singling out of
certain countries and imposing partial solutions, believes that
peace is indivisible, especially in cases where issues are
closely interrelated, as is the case in the Middle East. We
also believe that unilateral and partial arrangements are
bound to give rise to nothing but new disputes and conflicts.
In this context, I should like to affirm, on the basis of
the object-lessons learnt from our common experience, that
there can be no firm and lasting peace in the Middle East
without Lebanon and Syria. The accord reached between
Israel and the Palestinians will remain a mere single step
unless it is quickly complemented by substantive solutions
on the other Arab tracks. Lebanon, which is extremely
limited in the size of its territory, has a delicate population
composition and scant economic resources, cannot provide
a solution for Palestinians who have been uprooted from
their land. The responsibility for returning the Palestinians
Forty-eighth session - 30 September l993 15
to their homeland and for finding a satisfactory solution to
their status remains within the competence of the
international community. If we really wish to put an end
once for all to the chapters of pain and anguish in the
Middle East, then the cause of the Palestinians should be
addressed in such a manner that may ensure for them a
decent life commensurate with their legitimate aspirations
and the aspirations of all our countries after human rights.
Fourthly, in order to achieve peace, Lebanon is willing
to cooperate fully with the two co-sponsors of the peace
conference, particularly the United States of America, to
reach a comprehensive and just solution that would
safeguard the right of all parties to permanent peace, and put
an end once and for all to conflicts in the region. Towards
that end, Lebanon stands ready to assume its due share of
the responsibility.


I warmly congratulate
Ambassador Insanally, on his election as President of the
forty-eighth session of the General Assembly. As a fellow
Commonwealth member with Guyana, Australia is very
pleased to serve in the Assembly under his presidency.
This session of the General Assembly will deal with a
particularly heavy and important agenda. It will do so at a
time when hopes for, and expectations of, the United
Nations have never been greater - but when, at the same
time, many doubts have been raised about the capacity of the
United Nations system to cope. We will be relying very
much, Mr. President, on your wisdom and your experience
as you preside over our deliberations.

The world is a rather less happy place than we all
hoped it would be after the end of the cold war. Economic
and social deprivation continues to be a harsh daily reality
for many of our countries and our peoples. Not even the
most advanced countries are immune. The developed
Western economies are limping, with low growth rates,
historically high unemployment rates, increasing disparities
as a result between rich and poor, and a continuing inability
so far to reach agreement - either between themselves or
with the rest of the world’s trading nations - about the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade liberalization
measures so necessary to give a new kick-start to world
trade and economic growth.
In the non-Western world, rates of growth have been
extraordinarily uneven. The spectacular advance in some
regions, in particular East Asia, has been in stark contrast to
the continuing terrible deprivation and poverty in others.
Some States have simply been unable to cope with exploding
internal economic, political and social problems, and for all
practical purposes have collapsed, leaving the international
community to respond, somehow, to the humanitarian crises
that have followed so often.
In security terms, the end of the cold war has seen the
end of the super-Power nuclear-arms race and has relieved
us of the immediate threat of nuclear devastation. We have
seen major achievements in nuclear-arms reduction; and for
the first time in the history of the nuclear age a
comprehensive test-ban treaty, which would ban all nuclear
tests in all environments for all time, seems within our
reach. We could help to make it even more so by adopting
by consensus a resolution in this Assembly supporting the
negotiation of that treaty. A very great deal, of course,
depends on the current moratorium on all nuclear testing
being maintained. We in Australia very strongly support
what President Clinton said in that respect this morning.
This year we signed at last, after 20 years of
negotiation, the chemical weapons Convention. But much
remains to be done to bring this and other instruments into
effective operation. And there are still too many countries
unwilling to submit themselves to the disciplines, more
important and more necessary now than ever, of the nuclear
non-proliferation Treaty.
The threat of conflicts between States has certainly not
diminished with the end of the cold war. If anything, the
removal of the cold-war gridlock - the discipline imposed by
the super-Powers on each other and their respective
supporters - has created more room than ever for States to
manoeuvre. Some are beginning to do so, and some are
bound to seek to do so in the future. Some of the emerging
economic Powers have yet to acquire political or military
profiles commensurate with their new wealth, and the
process of adjustment certainly has ample potential to
generate regional tensions. Should those tensions escalate
into conflict, the unhappy reality is that proliferation of more
sophisticated conventional weapons and proliferation of the
capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction make any
prospect of major regional conflict an alarming one for the
world as a whole.
The release of cold-war pressures has been associated
with another major new development of security concern
with which we are all now disturbingly familiar: the
resurgence of ethno-nationalism, often taking a violent form.
Some ethnic groups are being prepared to pursue their
claims for self-determination within the framework of
existing States, arguing essentially for minority human rights
protection - claims of right which, on first principles, we
should all be prepared to acknowledge and support. But
many other such groups have made clear that they will be
satisfied by nothing less than their nations becoming States,
causing the fragmentation of existing States in the process,
and creating some very real dilemmas for the international
community as a result. Again, the proliferating availability
of weaponry of every degree of sophistication has given a
sharp new edge to these concerns.
Looking out upon a world with all these characteristics,
it is easy to be pessimistic and fatalistic. But I do not think
we should retreat into that habit of mind. For everything
that has gone wrong over the last few years, there is
something else that has gone right. To match against the
awful continuing tragedy in the former Yugoslavia, we have,
for example, this month’s peace agreement in the Middle
East - of course, only the first step in what remains a long
journey, but an enormously encouraging one
notwithstanding. And to match against the continuing chaos
and uncertainty in Somalia, and the at best very limited
success of the United Nations operation there, we have now
the unquestioned success of the United Nations operation in
Cambodia - and the end at last to more than 20 years of
what has been a real twentieth-century tragedy involving
bloody war, civil war, genocide, invasion and civil war
again.
A terrible conflict continues in Angola, but peace is at
hand at last in Mozambique; and in South Africa the final
death of apartheid is imminent, as testified last week in this
place by Nelson Mandela. Military regimes have given way
to democratic ones throughout Latin America. Many
problems remain to be solved in the former Soviet Union,
but Governments that can credibly claim to reflect the will
of their peoples are in place throughout Central and Eastern
Europe. The military regime in Myanmar, or Burma,
continues to resist the obvious mood of its people for liberty
and democracy, but elsewhere in the region traditionally
monolithic government structures - driven in many cases by
economic imperatives - are beginning to show signs of
flexibility and responsiveness.
But while I do not believe that we should be unduly
pessimistic or fatalistic about the condition of the world
around us, nor can we afford to be complacent. There is
much more that we can and should be doing to reinforce and
strengthen the international community’s capacity to govern
itself better, and in particular to better guarantee the
maintenance of peace and security in the post-cold-war
world. It is on this subject - the role of the United Nations
and the international community generally in securing peace
in the world of the 1990s and beyond that I want specifically
to focus my remarks today.
A little over a year ago, following a unique meeting of
the Security Council, Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali
published "An Agenda for Peace". It was and remains a
remarkable document, one which poses most of the questions
we need to address if we are to have a fair chance of
maintaining international peace and security in the world of
today and the foreseeable future. Since that time, a
worldwide debate has taken place on the issues described in
"An Agenda for Peace", which has involved not only
Governments and officials, but has reached out to embrace
Forty-eighth session - 27 September l993 25
universities, foundations, non-governmental organizations
and many organs of the public media as well. This debate
generated resolutions at the last session of the General
Assembly, several worthwhile changes to some procedures
and structures within the Secretariat, and the prospect of
further changes to come.
It cannot be said, however, that the issues raised by
"An Agenda for Peace" are now all settled, either in theory
or in practice. We still do not have even a completely clear
and consistent shared vocabulary to define the ways in which
it is possible for the United Nations and other organs of the
international community to respond to security problems:
"peacemaking", for example, means different things still to
different people; so do "preventive diplomacy" and "peace
building"; the conceptual boundary between "peace-keeping"
on the one hand and "peace enforcement" on the other is not
drawn in the same way by everyone who uses these terms.
Nor do we seem yet to have clear and universal
agreement even as to the kind of problems which justify a
security response by the international community. Should
we recognize, for example, a humanitarian right of
intervention and, if so, in what circumstances and to what
extent? When does an economic or social problem become
the kind of security problem which justifies the mobilization
of the response strategies spelt out in Chapters VI and VII
of the United Nations Charter?
Even when it comes to applying a very familiar
response to a new problem - for example, establishing a
peace-keeping operation like the 30 which have now been
initiated since 1946 - there does not yet seem to have been
developed a commonly accepted check list of criteria to
guide decision-makers in determining when precisely the
operation should be set in train, how it should be structured,
managed and resourced, or how long it should continue.
Every situation, of course, has its own characteristics, but is
it really necessary for decisions on these matters by the
Security Council or others to be made on so evidently ad
hoc a basis?
When it comes to thinking about how the United
Nations - and others in the international community,
including regional organizations - might best be structured,
organized, managed and funded to most effectively address
the international peace and security agenda, it is not clear to
me that we have yet heard the last word in that debate.
An extraordinary amount has been achieved in the
tumultuous period since 1989 in responding to the new
demands and challenges that have been unceasingly hurled
at the United Nations, but a good deal more remains to be
done if the United Nations in particular, the only fully
empowered body with global membership that we have, is
to be as effective as we would all want it to be.
It is much easier, of course, to ask all these questions
than to answer them. Identifying problems is always easier
than defining acceptable solutions. But I believe that we all
have a responsibility to each other and the international
community to try to answer these questions and to keep on
working away at the answers until we find common ground.
So it is in that spirit that I put before the Assembly today a
detailed study of these questions, which tries to answer them
in a way which might help us find a little more of that
common ground.
The study, in the form of a book entitled Cooperating
for Peace, has been distributed, I hope, to delegations as I
speak. I do not pretend for a moment that this says the last
word on any of the enormously complex and sensitive issues
with which it deals. It is simply an Australian contribution
to the debate which was so thoughtfully and constructively
initiated by the Secretary-General last year.
The study seeks to do three things in particular. First,
it suggests ways of bringing a little more clarity - to the
extent this is presently lacking - into the concepts and
vocabulary that we use in defining security problems,
defining possible responses and matching responses to
problems. Secondly, it suggests specific criteria that might
be applied by decision-makers in deciding what, if any,
response is appropriate to a particular new security problem.
And, thirdly, it suggests a priority list of areas in which
further United Nations reform might usefully be pursued. In
the short time that remains to me I shall try to give a quick,
outline sketch of what we are trying to say in each of these
respects.
First of all, on the issue of concepts and terminology,
it is perhaps worth making the point at the outset that this is
not just something for academics to wrangle about. It
matters in practice. If decision-makers do not share the
same basic way of looking at issues and the same basic
vocabulary in defining them, there is a very real risk that
they will talk past each other - or, at the very least, find it
very much harder to produce responses which are timely,
properly graduated, effective in practice, affordable and
broadly consistent from one case to the next.
Just as importantly, the choice of words can sometimes
significantly influence the way in which we think about
matters of substance. To give just one example: If we use,
as many people still do, the expression "peace-making" to
describe military enforcement action, then, simply because
this is such an innocuous and constructive sounding
expression, there is a danger that we may over time become
a little more relaxed than we should be about taking such
action. It is much better, I suggest, to confine the expression
"peace-making" to diplomatic-type activity to resolve conflict
and to reserve the expression "peace enforcement" to
describe the always dangerous, always messy, and what
should always be the last-resort, activity of applying military
force.
In the study we define security problems, in more or
less escalating order of seriousness, as "emerging threats",
"disputes", "armed conflicts" and "other major security
crises." We make the point that security is not strictly or
solely a military concept and that threats to security, as
many speakers in the general debate have already said, can
these days come very much from factors such as exploding
population pressures, environmental degradation, mass
involuntary movements of people and the illicit narcotics
trade, among other things.
Equally, we define possible responses to security
problems, again in escalating order of severity, in terms of
"peace- building," "preventive diplomacy," "preventive
deployment," "peace- making," "peace-keeping," "sanctions"
and "peace enforcement." We are at pains to emphasize that
it is only as a last resort that security solutions should be
seen as coming out of the barrel of a gun. We give much
more emphasis than has been common elsewhere to the
concept of "peace-building," which we define in the study as
extending not just to post-conflict economic development
and institution-building strategies, but to a whole variety of
preventive strategies, both within particular countries and in
the form of international treaty-type régimes addressing both
military and non-military threats to security.
In defining criteria for embarking on peace operations -
whether peace-keeping or peace enforcement - the most
crucial consideration is that there be a clearminded focus on
the objectives of the exercise and the likely effectiveness of
the operation in achieving those objectives. No operations
of this kind should ever be embarked upon for the sake of
being seen to be doing something. Although it is not always
possible to analyse or predict with certainty, it should always
be possible to avoid embarking on operations which are
manifestly likely to be ineffective and which, as such, put at
risk the most crucial United Nations resource of all, its
credibility.
In the case of peace-keeping we suggest in Cooperating
for Peace that there are seven basic conditions for ensuring
an effective operation: clear and achievable goals; adequate
resources; close coordination of peace-keeping with any
ongoing peacemaking activity; a capacity to be and to be
seen to be absolutely impartial as between the parties who
have been in conflict; a significant degree of local support
for the peace-keepers; evident support for the operation from
external Powers that may have been involved previously in
supporting one side or the other; and a "signposted exit",
that is, a clearly designated termination point, or set of
termination criteria.
When it comes to peace-enforcement operations, our
suggested criteria for determining involvement are quite
complex and vary according to whether one is talking about
an operation in response to cross-border aggression, as with
Iraq and Kuwait; about one in support of peace-keeping
operations, the basic rationale for United Nations
involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina; or about peace
enforcement in support of humanitarian objectives, as in
Somalia. Without going into all the necessary detail now, I
think the basic considerations always come down to the
following: widespread international support; clear and
achievable goals; adequate total resources to meet those
goals; and clearly defined termination or review points.
If the United Nations is to play with maximum
effectiveness the central role it needs to play in maintaining
international peace and security, then further change, further
reform in the United Nations system, really is necessary.
Some of that change is bound to be painful for some people,
but that is the way of change. Putting it simply and starkly:
Unless the United Nations develops a comprehensive
capacity to address today’s and tomorrow’s problems - not
yesterday’s - there is a very real risk of the United Nations
gradually losing, with Governments and peoples around the
world, the credibility it needs to survive.
In the study we identify a number of priority areas for
change. The first is to restructure the Secretariat to ensure
that the Secretary-General has an effective chain of
command exercising authority over major United Nations
operations and to consolidate and coordinate in a more
orderly and manageable way the present sprawl of
departments and agencies. We support the proposal that the
Secretary-General create a new senior structure at United
Nations Headquarters under which he would have four
Deputy Secretaries-General responsible, respectively, for
peace and security, economic and social operations,
humanitarian operations and administration and management.
Each such Deputy Secretary-General would have full
executive responsibility for the operational issues falling
within his or her portfolio, subject only to direction by the
Secretary-General. This would be a big change, and it is not
the first time it has been proposed, but it is the one that,
more than anything else, would create the conditions for
more orderly and effective management throughout the
United Nations system.
The second priority need is to resolve once and for all
the United Nations critical funding problem. Various
adventurous ideas have been canvassed for external
funding - money coming from sources other than Member
States - and we suggest that at least one of those ideas,
namely, a small levy on international airline travel, be
further explored. But overwhelmingly, of course, the
problem is one that has been created by Member States,
including the richest of our number, and it is entirely within
our ability to resolve by meeting our assessed contributions
for regular budgets and peace operations in full and on time.
It is an abuse of good management principles and of basic
common sense to be forcing the Secretary-General to spend
so much of his time pleading for debts to be honoured. In
that respect I echo the sentiments expressed a few minutes
ago by Mrs. Brundtland.
If the bulk of current arrears were to be paid by the end
of this year, the United Nations finances would be in a quite
healthy position, with the Working Capital Fund, the Peace-
keeping Reserve Fund and the Special Account all
replenished and the Organization in a position to meet all
outstanding troop-contribution costs.
The third priority is to improve the management of
peace operations, both at Headquarters and in the field.
Some very significant and useful steps have already been
taken in this regard in the context of the creation of the new
Department of Peace-keeping Operations, but more remains
to be done, including in particular the development over time
of a properly constituted General Staff to plan and manage
the military dimensions of such operations.
The fourth priority is to give special attention to the
machinery of preventive diplomacy, again both at
Headquarters and in the field. These efforts have been
largely ad hoc in the past, although the Department of
Political Affairs is gradually building a core of appropriate
expertise. Quite apart from anything else, there is an
overwhelming cost advantage in doing more to stop disputes
becoming armed conflicts. We estimate the cost of keeping
100 well-qualified, experienced practitioners of preventive
diplomacy in the field for a year to be $21 million; compare
that with this year’s peace operations budget of $3.7 billion -
and compare it, moreover, with the $70 billion that it is
estimated to have cost the United Nations coalition to fight
the six-week Gulf war.
The fifth priority is to rethink the whole system of
humanitarian relief coordination. Despite advances that have
been made with the creation of the Department of
Humanitarian Affairs, we think some basic structural
problems remain. We propose that they be addressed in a
radical way by the creation of a new disaster-response
agency, combining the relief and basic rehabilitation
functions of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World Food Programme
(WFP), which would work in turn directly to the suggested
Deputy Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs.
The sixth priority, as we see it, is to take various steps
to raise the profile within the United Nations system of
peace-building. This is, after all, the point of intersection
between the Organization’s peace and security role and its
economic and social role, and it should be given recognition
and emphasis as such. The pursuit of peace and security has
to include the satisfaction of basic human needs, as well as
the direct prevention, containment and settlement of armed
conflict. Much of the United Nations system is in fact
already concerned with peace- building in the form of
activities such as international law-making, disarmament,
economic and social advancement, sustainable development,
democratization and institution building. But much more
can be done, organizationally, to link these activities
together, to recognize their security significance, and to
ensure that they are pursued with a sense of common
purpose.
The remaining priority, a very large subject in itself, as
we all know, is to regenerate the Security Council - not
because it is now working ineffectively, but because its
manifest lack of representativeness is beginning to impact
upon its legitimacy. The Security Council is the linchpin of
the whole United Nations peace and security system, and it
is in no one’s interest that its credibility should be allowed
to gradually erode. The outstanding questions about the size
and shape of the Council should certainly be resolved by the
time of the United Nations fiftieth anniversary in 1995.
This, indeed, remains an ideal target date for the
achievement of a whole range of necessary organizational
reforms.
Running right through the study - and underlying all the
suggestions we have been making about structure and
process - is a single sustaining idea, that of cooperative
security. This embraces two perhaps rather more familiar
ideas, common security and collective security. But the
overall flavour of cooperative security can perhaps best be
captured by describing it, in a little more detail, as an
approach that emphasizes reassurance rather than deterrence;
that is inclusive rather than exclusive; that favours
multilateralism over unilateralism or bilateralism; that does
not rank military solutions over non-military ones; that
assumes that States are the principal actors in the security
system, but also accepts that non-State actors have an
important role to play; that does not particularly emphasize
the creation of formal security institutions but does not reject
them either; and that above all stresses the value of creating
habits of dialogue.
A good deal of the spirit of cooperative security is in
fact to be found in the Charter of the United Nations.
Paragraph 4 of Article 1, a provision much neglected in the
past, designates the United Nations as a "centre for
harmonizing the actions of nations" - not the sentiments of
nations, but the actions of nations. In Articles 55 and 56
Member States pledge themselves to create the
"conditions of stability and well-being which are
necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among
nations".
Underscored in that context are the promotion of higher
standards of living, the solution of economic and social
problems and respect for human rights.
Too often during the cold war we looked past these
obligations and concerns, because we were preoccupied with
military means of survival. But the threats that concerned us
then no longer exist; and what was written in San Francisco,
before the cold war froze our capacity to deal with many
other kinds of threats to security, should now be seen as a
compelling guide.
Our survival in the 1990s and beyond will depend on
our developing a new understanding of what constitutes
security and what contributes to it. It will depend on our
capacity to think clearly about how to react to new security
problems as they arise. It will depend on our willingness to
rethink and to reshape our institutions, including the United
Nations, so that they can cope with new realities. But,
above all, it will depend on our all developing and sustaining
a real commitment to cooperating for peace.


First of all, please
convey to His Excellency, Ambassador Insanally, my
congratulations on his election to the presidency of the forty-
eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly.
This session of the General Assembly is being held at a
point in time in which the United Nations is being asked to
play a constructive role in many fields. The onerous task of
helping to respond to this challenge rests on his capable
shoulders. I should like to wish him every success in his
task and I pledge the full support of the delegation of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The world is balancing between great hope and
immense suffering. Walls have tumbled not only in Europe.
In the Middle East two courageous leaders, Prime Minister
Rabin and Chairman Arafat, have set out on the road to
reconciliation between their people. In South Africa
Mr. Mandela and President De Klerk showed similar courage
in breaking with the past and ushering in a new democratic
South Africa. At the same time, we see violence of many
kinds raking the face of the Earth. From Angola to Bosnia
villages are being destroyed and innocent people are
slaughtered in cold blood.
The future of Russia as well is crucial to our hopes. A
democratic Russia at peace with itself and its neighbours is
a major element of international stability. In Russia, too, we
see a courageous statesman trying to break with the past:
President Boris Yeltsin. I join many others in expressing my
full support for his efforts to consolidate democracy in
Russia.
The end of the cold war created a historic opportunity
to shape a more just and peaceful world. History will judge
us severely if we let this opportunity slip through our hands.
Strengthening international peace and security involves
a broad range of efforts. It is now widely recognized that
"security" cannot be viewed in military or political-military
terms alone. A broader definition is called for. Indeed, last
year’s summit meeting of the Security Council emphasized
that non-military sources of instability in the economic,
social, humanitarian and ecological fields can be threats to
peace and security as well. The traditional distinction
between conflicts between States and conflicts within States
is also becoming blurred. Bloodshed within a State tends,
sooner or later, to spill across national borders. This, of
course, raises the issue of sovereignty. How do we define
sovereignty at a time of increasing interdependence and
increasing mutual vulnerability? Sovereignty is certainly an
important principle of international law. But this principle
can never have been intended to shield from the outside
world dictators who massacre their own people. Nor can it
be intended to allow the perpetuation of large-scale suffering
and death in a State that has collapsed into anarchy. At
times the international community can indeed have a moral
duty to intervene. And at times it can be necessary for the
United Nations to take over the de facto exercise of
sovereignty in such a shattered State to allow it to be rebuilt.
We must hope that this will succeed in Somalia. We can
take heart from current developments in Cambodia, which
prove that such ambitious ventures can succeed.
A number of recent resolutions of the Security Council
have broken new ground by extending international
responsibility to encompass the plight of individual countries
such as Somalia and Bosnia. Thus the definition of what
constitutes a threat to international peace and security has
gradually been widened.
In his recent speech in Quebec, Secretary-General
Boutros Boutros-Ghali discussed the issue of "conflict
situations within nations". He said:
"It is these new conflicts which are most
threatening to international peace today and which
are most damaging to the rights of individuals".
On that occasion the Secretary-General called for "a
new diplomacy for democracy and human rights". I believe
22 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
that this idea is a valuable addition to our "Agenda for
Peace".
Let me mention here the United Nations Conference on
Human Rights, which opened up new possibilities for
improving the protection of human rights. After a difficult
start, the outcome of the Conference was certainly gratifying.
The Final Document contains important recommendations
for further steps, which should now be implemented.
Thus, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to
underscore the urgent appeal of the Conference to the
Secretary-General and the General Assembly to increase
drastically the funding of the United Nations Centre for
Human Rights. It is of crucial importance that in the course
of this session of the General Assembly the post of high
commissioner for human rights be created, and the broad
outline of the mandate established. This session will also
provide us with an opportunity to tackle one of the most
heinous categories of human rights violations - that of grave
war crimes - through the establishment of the International
War Crimes Tribunal. The Kingdom of the Netherlands,
with its rich tradition in the field of international law, is
proud to have been asked to host the Tribunal in The Hague.
The increasing responsibilities that the United Nations
is called upon to shoulder emphasize the twin requirements
of legitimacy and effectiveness. This brings us to the heart
of the debate on enlargement of the Security Council.
Clearly, we must be careful not to jeopardize the
decision-making ability of the Security Council by making
it unwieldy. However, I would favor extension of the
Council by the inclusion of a few major countries, provided
that they were willing and able to carry the share of
collective responsibility that went with their membership.
The "Agenda for Peace" invites us to take a broader
view of the task of maintaining peace and security. It
rightly stresses the need for early warning and early action
with regard to a crisis; or - even better - preventive action.
Developments in the former Yugoslavia and in other trouble
spots of the world have once again confirmed that the longer
a crisis is allowed to fester, the more difficult it is to bring
it under control, and the higher the cost of such action.
I believe that, in this light, we should try to rethink the
interrelationship of the various instruments of crisis
management. Diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions and
military pressure should not necessarily be viewed as
sequential but, rather, as an integrated set of instruments.
Peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building
require the full range of United Nations instruments,
including those of the humanitarian and socio-economic
sectors.
The enormous increase in the number and scope of
United Nations peace-keeping operations confronts us all
with a daunting task. Moreover, in many cases the
environment in which these operations take place has
changed: whereas, previously, peace-keeping operations
tended to be conducted in a benign environment, where all
parties benefited from the implementation of a limited
mandate, now peace-keepers often operate in a hostile
climate, where one or more parties frown upon the United
Nations presence and the Organization’s mandate. This
means that many operations these days are fraught literally
with physical danger for United Nations personnel - civilian
as well as military - and that privileges and immunities are
often violated. No longer does the blue flag automatically
command respect, and this directly affects the credibility of
the United Nations. Consequently, mandates now tend to be
stronger than before, and often they are explicitly based
upon Chapter VII of the Charter.
The changing character of peace-keeping operations
requires personnel with different qualifications. Well-trained
soldiers used to be able to do the job; today we require also
specialized units in the field of logistics, staff officers with
experience in multinational operations, mine-clearing experts,
and so on. On the civilian side, police officers, electoral
experts, administrators and human-rights specialists are
indispensable for integrated operations.
Increasing recourse to the United Nations, particularly
when it comes to initiating peace operations, is pushing the
United Nations to the limits of its organizational and
financial resources. This means that in the future the United
Nations will have to rely more on regional organizations and
structures to carry out peace operations and other missions.
The Charter makes provision for this, and the
Secretary-General has advanced a similar proposal in his
"Agenda for Peace". On one hand, this will relieve the
United Nations of some of its commitments; on the other, it
will enable regional organizations or structures with greater
first-hand knowledge of the conflicts in their parts of the
world to contribute more effectively to resolution of the
underlying problems.
There are no standard formulas which dictate how these
interlocking institutions should interact, and each case will
have to be looked at individually to determine which form
of cooperation is most suitable.
Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 23
The Kingdom of the Netherlands has consistently
endeavoured to make a high-grade contribution to effective
peace operations, to which we feel committed as a Member
of the United Nations. The present reorganization of the
Netherlands armed forces is specifically geared to enabling
our country to participate even more broadly, speedily and
effectively in future peace-keeping operations.
The Netherlands believes that adequate preparation and
efficient supervision are crucial to the success of peace
operations and has accordingly made a number of military
officials available to the United Nations.
As peace operations increase in number and scope, so
does the need for support from the Secretariat. The
Secretariat should be able to expand - and to contract - in
proportion to the need for peace-keeping tasks. Whenever
expansion is required it should take place at an early stage.
The preparation, planning and budgeting that precede the
actual operation are precisely the elements that are essential
to its success. The budgets currently proposed to the
General Assembly for setting up new peace operations are
inadequate. This not only makes it difficult for the Member
States to reach decisions on the funding of operations, but
also indicates that, at the time the budgets are presented,
there is no complete picture of the way the operation is to be
set up. Obviously, if the number of peace operations
decreases, the additional staff at the Secretariat will also no
longer be necessary. What I am suggesting here is that any
reinforcement be temporary, flexible and prompt.
Apart from proper planning and training, adequate
staffing and a satisfactory level of supervision - all of which
are indispensable to the success of a peace operation - it is
important that United Nations peace forces be on the spot as
soon as possible after the decision to deploy them has been
made. Otherwise, there is a danger that hostilities will be
resumed and thus that the basis for successful
implementation of the Security Council mandate will have
disappeared before the forces are in position. Speed is
therefore of the essence if the use of greater force is to be
avoided.
This is possible only if there is a clear picture of the
forces that can be made available to the United Nations at
short notice. In this connection, the Netherlands welcomes
the formation of the stand-by forces planning team, which is
engaged in formulating a concept and drawing up an
inventory of rapid deployment forces. The Netherlands has
undertaken to communicate by the end of 1993 which Dutch
units could be eligible for designation as stand-by forces.
The final decision concerning possible deployment of troops
will of course always rest with the Netherlands Government.
The growing demands on the United Nations system
can be met only if standards of management, administration
and accountability are high. The responsibility for
determining and maintaining these standards lies first and
foremost with ourselves as Member States. It is our
responsibility to indicate clear priorities, to ensure
consistency in the decisions taken by different United
Nations commissions and governing bodies, and to provide
the financial resources required to meet agreed priorities.
Much criticism levelled against the Organization
indicates a genuine need to improve the functioning and
management of the Secretariat. Part of this criticism has its
roots in the way Member States discharge their
responsibilities: the failure of Governments to set priorities,
the adoption of resolutions with unclear objectives and the
failure to pay assessed contributions cannot be blamed on
the Secretariat.
I am convinced that the vast majority of United Nations
staff members are dedicated and loyal international civil
servants. We owe them our respect. In areas ranging from
the direct provision of health care to non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons, many of them work under difficult
conditions, some even risking their lives.
But despite the quality and commitment of its staff, the
Secretariat should take a long hard look at its own
management structure. Key phrases such as management by
objectives, transparency and accountability must become
household words in United Nations vocabulary. Line
managers must be given greater responsibility and should be
held accountable for the attainment of predetermined
objectives.
Moreover, the Secretariat should respond to criticism in
a more satisfactory manner: first of all, by ensuring that
justified criticism is acted upon and that corrective measures
are taken without delay; and, secondly, by promptly refuting
false allegations. In short, the public relations of the United
Nations need improvement.
The Secretary-General has taken several commendable
initiatives to restructure the Secretariat. The first changes
were introduced in the political sectors, and this year the
social and economic sectors were reorganized. This
restructuring has provided a solid basis for improving
effectiveness and coordination. But further measures are
required. It is important to maintain the momentum and to
24 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session
provide clear perspectives for United Nations staff members:
they should not be kept in the dark about their future status
and about the direction of reform. Lingering uncertainty has
affected staff morale and thus staff effectiveness.
I have already said that Member States have a
responsibility to provide financial resources for agreed
priorities and mandated activities. The United Nations
cannot be run on a shoestring. Year after year the
Organization suffers from long delays in the receipt of
assessed contributions. As a result, mandated activities can
be implemented only in part or after substantial delay. In
the area of peace-keeping, troop contributors unfortunately
have to be prepared and able to provide long-term advance
financing for peace-keeping operations.
This lack of discipline among Member States forces the
Secretariat to spend a great deal of energy attempting to
solve incessant liquidity problems. The painful paradox is
that the Secretariat’s relative success at shoestring budgeting
seems to contribute to a further deterioration in payment
discipline among Member States. Moreover, the burden of
keeping the United Nations in business now lies unfairly
with those Member States who make their payments
promptly and in full.
A number of Member States appear to make partial
payments as an expression of their dissatisfaction with
certain aspects of the Organization’s work. The United
Nations does not serve an à la carte menu: dissatisfaction
should be voiced in debate and by force of argument, not by
withholding assessed contributions.
We shall be considering the recommendations of the
Volcker-Ogata report on the financing of the United Nations
system during this session. The merits of many of the
recommendations are obvious, but generally speaking they
can only help to alleviate the immediate problems; they do
not go to the heart of the matter. Ultimately, the only
solution to the Organization’s financial problems - and this
cannot be stated often enough - is prompt and full payment
of assessed contributions by all Member States.
While we insist that Member States meet their financial
obligations, we also expect the Secretariat to use its financial
resources in an efficient and effective manner. Some
Member States have suggested the establishment of new
financial control mechanisms. These proposals may have
merits, but we should not lose sight of the fact that a number
of control mechanisms already exist. I believe that a critical
review of the functioning of the present mechanisms is in
order before we decide upon new structures.
But auditing alone is insufficient. The structure of the
Organization must be such that financial and administrative
mismanagement is prevented. Line managers, for example,
must be held accountable for budgets under their control. In
recent years the Netherlands delegation has presented several
ideas aimed at the improvement of the management of
United Nations programmes, and these have subsequently
been adopted by the General Assembly.
In addition, I advocate greater cost-awareness, not only
among United Nations staff but also, and especially, among
Member States. It is relatively simple to request the
Secretary-General to undertake new activities, call additional
meetings or produce reports on a variety of issues. But we
must ask ourselves each time whether these requests meet a
real need, as they compete for strained financial and staff
resources.
Although the resources of the United Nations are
limited, genuine priorities must be met. In this respect, at
this session the General Assembly will face a particularly
difficult task. It will have to determine which activities will
receive priority under the regular budget for 1994 and 1995.
As new priorities emerge, a number of activities will have to
be reduced or even eliminated altogether. We have to live
within our means. The Netherlands believes that additional
resources are needed most to strengthen the capacity of the
United Nations in the area of human rights, to improve the
Secretariat’s capacity to plan and manage peace-keeping
activities and to ensure the effective coordination of
humanitarian and emergency operations.
So far I have addressed a number of conditions that
will have to be fulfilled if the United Nations is to respond
effectively to the new challenges confronting it. A sound
financial basis, effective management and the availability of
qualified personnel, both at the Secretariat and in the context
of peace operations in the field, are the material
requirements which must be met. However, no less crucial
is the determination actually to implement the resolutions
adopted by the Security Council. Decision-making in the
Council should reflect the combined political will of its
members - acting on behalf of the United Nations Member
States - actually to translate their words into action where
necessary, once the material conditions have been fulfilled.
Too often in the recent past, there has been a failure to take
decisive action despite a declared willingness to do so when
such action was both necessary and justified.
Irrespective of the detrimental effect this can have on
peace operations themselves, it can also cause irreparable
damage in the long term to the standing and credibility of
Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 25
the United Nations as a whole. Let me be clear about this:
I am not advocating resort to military action at the drop of
a hat. But if the Security Council draws a line and says that
if the line is crossed military action will be taken, it must be
prepared to fulfil this pledge. If such a course proves
impossible, then the mandate was not adequately tailored to
the situation. If, on the other hand, the mandate is adequate
but the Council lacks the will to carry it out, its apparent
determination is nothing but an empty threat. Either way,
the credibility of the Organization is dealt a severe blow. If
this occurs too often, we run the risk that the new decisive
United Nations of the post-cold-war era will become a paper
tiger, making decisions that it cannot or will not put into
practice. This must not be allowed to happen.
Now, more than ever, we need a decisive United
Nations and a firm commitment on the part of the Member
States. The United Nations needs Member States that pay
their dues, provide the Organization with the necessary
human resources and have the political will to carry out the
decisions which they have collectively arrived at. The
Member States need a United Nations which is able to
perform those tasks, which operates efficiently and
effectively and which can be made accountable for the
resources entrusted to it. It is the wish of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands that this forty-eighth session of the General
Assembly will bring us closer to achieving these aims.