The present session
provides Member States with an opportunity to hold a
serious and substantive review of world affairs and the role
of the United Nations, with particular focus on the
forthcoming twenty-first century. In this respect, I have no
doubt that the deliberations here will be useful in preparing
for the millennium summit and the Millennium Assembly
next year, to which events the Mongolian Government
attaches great importance.
The United Nations is a truly universal organization
comprising large and small, developed and developing
countries. This year its membership reached 188 with the
admission of three new members: I take this opportunity to
convey the warm congratulations of the Mongolian people
to the peoples of Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga on this
auspicious occasion.
It is gratifying to note that our Organization is not
only enlarging its ranks but is also making tangible efforts
to restructure its activities in order to enhance its efficiency
and effectiveness. This is a movement in the right direction.
Further promotion of reforms is in the interests of the entire
international community, especially the small and medium-
sized States. Mongolia consistently supports United Nations
reforms aimed at further strengthening the Organization’s
role in ensuring international peace and security and
promoting disarmament, development, social progress and
the peaceful settlement of conflicts in various parts of the
world.
Increasing globalization and interdependence make it
imperative that the international community should redouble
its cooperative efforts to meet existing and future
challenges and ensure a more secure environment for all
nations. Globalization and interdependence also demonstrate
the growing importance of multilateralism in world affairs
and thus the need to further strengthen and invigorate the
United Nations and other international institutions. As a
result of its reforms, the United Nations should become
more viable and effective, addressing the world’s problems
equitably.
The 1999 report of the Secretary-General on the work
of the Organization (A/54/1) gives, in our view, a clear and
analytical review of United Nations activities, its
achievements and setbacks, and the challenges that lie
ahead; it contains specific proposals on further measures to
improve the Organization’s performance the better to serve
the interests of its Member States. The Mongolian
Government is supportive of the idea advanced by the
Secretary-General in paragraph 61 of his report concerning
the need to shift from a culture of reaction, to a culture of
prevention. It is in this spirit that Mongolia will next
week sign a memorandum of understanding with the
United Nations on standby agreements whereby it would
pledge to participate in future United Nations operations
by contributing staff officers, military observers and
medical officers.
Mongolia is consistently pursuing its all-embracing
democratic reforms and its transition to a market
economy. Neither is easy. However, the Government and
the people of Mongolia are strongly committed to the
choice they made 10 years ago. From this rostrum, I
would like to reaffirm that the democratic process in
Mongolia is irreversible and that Mongolia’s foreign
policy will remain constant. My Government greatly
appreciates the support and assistance given Mongolia by
the international community of donor countries and
international organizations. That support and assistance
continue to be an important factor in our reform and
development efforts.
The major thrust of Mongolia’s development strategy
is to accelerate economic growth by further advancing
macroeconomic stabilization and development of a
private-sector-led economy. Mongolia is giving high
priority to creating an economic system that is flexible,
open, allows a free flow of foreign capital, ensures a
competitive environment and is underpinned by stable
government policies and a reinvigorated, modern financial
sector that encourages economic growth. In pursuing this
policy, my Government pays particular attention to the
social dimensions of economic reforms, namely poverty
alleviation, unemployment reduction and protection for
the vulnerable strata of the country’s population.
Mongolia’s foreign policy activities aim to create a
favourable external environment for implementing this
development strategy. At the same time, my country is
striving to make its contribution to strengthening
international peace and stability generally as well as
promoting dialogue and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
region. Active participation in regional affairs —
integration into regional processes coupled with
consolidation of our bilateral ties with the countries of the
region — is one of Mongolia’s foreign policy priorities.
I am pleased to say that this year has been especially
fruitful in this respect.
International developments highlight once again the
fragility of peace and stability in certain areas of the
world and the need for concerted actions and for the
6

increased cooperation of States to prevent the outbreak of
new conflicts, seek viable solutions to the existing disputes
and promote further mutual understanding and trust among
nations.
While noting some positive developments in
international relations, Mongolia is seriously concerned with
the lingering zones of tension, ethnic strife and armed
conflict in Africa, Asia and Europe. It calls on the parties
involved to display restraint and seek peaceful solutions
through political dialogue and negotiations. In this context
Mongolia welcomes the resumption of the peace process in
the Middle East, which in our view should lead to a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region in
compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions
and the principle of land for peace.
Mongolia also duly appreciates the steps taken by the
Security Council to address the emergency situation in East
Timor and welcomes the cooperative approach of the
Government of Indonesia regarding the establishment of a
multinational force to halt and reverse the escalation of the
human catastrophe there. The people of East Timor have
overwhelmingly expressed themselves in favour of
independence.
My delegation stresses the importance of continuing
the intra-Korean dialogue and the four-party talks for peace
and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the Asia-
Pacific region in general.
We are concerned about the tension in South Asia and
add our voice to that of the international community, which
is calling on India and Pakistan to proceed to political
dialogue and search for a peaceful solution to their dispute.
Peace and stability are essential prerequisites for
promoting economic development and social progress. That
is why arms control and disarmament, particularly nuclear
disarmament, remain at the top of the global agenda.
Efforts to achieve further substantive progress in arms
control and disarmament should be intensified. Agreements
should be honoured and implemented. Nuclear tests, missile
technology developments, concerns over the anti-ballistic
missile treaty — all point to the urgent need for
invigorating our activities in this field. International arms
control efforts need to be comprehensive and include all
aspects of arms and military technology. Strengthening of
the nuclear non-proliferation regime stands out as one of
the top priorities, due not only to the devastating nature of
nuclear weapons and the enormous existing arsenal of them,
but also to the negative effect they have on the
disarmament process in general.
Mongolia fully supports adopting multilateral norms
restraining the development and possession of medium-
range missiles and preventing their proliferation. We
believe that progress on the START track will be helpful
in advancing disarmament negotiations in all areas.
Nuclear disarmament also calls for speedy agreement on
banning fissile materials for nuclear-weapons purposes.
Mongolia continues to attach great importance to
establishing effective international arrangements to assure
non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use
of nuclear weapons.
My delegation welcomes the outcome of the 1999
sessions of the Disarmament Commission and of the
Preparatory Committee for the year 2000 Review
Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Mongolia attaches
great importance to the role of the Review Conference in
strengthening the international regime of nuclear non-
proliferation. It also favours the earliest possible
convening of the fourth special session of the General
Assembly devoted to disarmament.
Three years have elapsed since the adoption by the
General Assembly of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-
Ban Treaty, which was a landmark event in the field of
nuclear disarmament. Regrettably, this important
international instrument has not yet come into force.
Mongolia wishes to reiterate its call on those States that
have not done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as
possible and thus contribute to the expeditious realization
of its noble objectives. We sincerely hope that the
forthcoming conference of the States that have ratified
this Treaty will be conducive to taking the necessary
measures to this end.
It is our belief that all States, irrespective of their
size and weight, can facilitate the attaining of the overall
goal of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. That
is why we believe that the establishment of nuclear-
weapon-free zones in different parts of the world should
be encouraged and supported. For its part, Mongolia is
making efforts in this respect by declaring its territory a
nuclear-weapon-free zone and taking the subsequent steps
necessary to institutionalize its nuclear-weapon-free status.
Last year the General Assembly adopted by
consensus resolution 53/77 D on Mongolia’s international
security and nuclear-weapon-free status. This was a
7

significant and encouraging event for Mongolia, testifying
to the existence of broad international support for our
objectives and efforts. The adoption of the resolution
constitutes an important contribution not only to Mongolia’s
security, but also — given Mongolia’s strategic location —
to regional security. Implementation of the main provisions
of the resolution — in cooperation with other Member
countries, including the five nuclear-weapon States, and the
United Nations — is one of the major objectives of our
foreign policy. The Mongolian Government has recently
circulated a memorandum on this issue as an official United
Nations document, in which it pointed out, inter alia, that
the Mongolian parliament is considering the adoption of
legislation defining its nuclear-weapon-free status.
Recently Mongolia hosted a United Nations regional
disarmament meeting, one of the agenda items of which
was the issue of Mongolia’s international security and
nuclear-weapon-free status. The meeting proved to be
useful in clarifying the pressing security issues, and it
provided an opportunity for the first in-depth analysis and
discussion of Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status in the
light of its external security. We believe that identifying
and defining Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status will
contribute to enhancing predictability, stability and
confidence in north-east Asia.
My Government fully shares the aspirations to ban
anti-personnel landmines and welcomes the entry into force
of the Ottawa Convention. The illicit trafficking in small
arms and light weapons is a matter of growing concern for
the international community. Therefore Mongolia supports
the convening of an international conference to consider
this issue in 2001.
Considering that only comprehensive arms-control and
disarmament measures will be effective in ensuring
international security, we, like many others, stand for
prompt agreement on a new comprehensive and non-
selective agenda for disarmament that will address the
relevant issues in a balanced manner, taking into account,
among other things, the need to prevent the development
and use of new weapons as well as to demilitarize the
global economy by reducing military budgets and shifting
resources towards human-security programmes.
Development issues continue to be the focus of
attention of national Governments and international
organizations and undoubtedly will be a major challenge in
the forthcoming century. Globalization affects all States,
though differently and unevenly. Many developing
countries, particularly the least developed, not only fail to
enjoy the benefits of globalization, but are being further
marginalized. Therefore, the adverse effects of
globalization should be addressed seriously and the
United Nations should be more actively involved in the
issue.
The Asian economic and financial crisis has had
significant socio-economic and security implications for
the countries of the region. Though the situation is
somehow stabilizing and the countries directly hit by the
crisis are showing some signs of recovery, the
international community should draw the necessary
lessons from this crisis and consider ways and means of
preventing such crises in the future.
While appreciating the work done by the United
Nations in the social and economic fields, my delegation
would like to underline the importance of taking further
effective measures to ensure the best utilization of the
existing capacities and comparative advantages of the
Organization. Therefore, it seems appropriate to stress the
necessity of closer interaction and cooperation between
the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and other relevant
international organizations.
The financing of development represents a very
sensitive and pressing issue that requires special attention
on the part of the international community. Mongolia
believes that the high-level intergovernmental meeting on
financing for development to be held in 2001 will be
timely in exploring the various options of promoting
financial stability and development. In this respect,
relieving the debt burden of the highly indebted
developing countries would be a form of contribution to
their development efforts. We also attach great
importance to the South-South summit and the tenth
session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD X), to be held next year.
Mongolia supports the universality of the World
Trade Organization. The new round of multilateral trade
negotiations should facilitate the integration of the
developing countries into the world economy. The
expansion of international cooperation for development
should place particular emphasis on assisting the most
vulnerable countries, which find themselves more and
more marginalized and insecure. Unfavourable
geographical location serves as a major impediment to the
development efforts of landlocked developing countries.
The problems of this group of States demand the
increased attention and support of the international
8

community. The steps that could ease the hardships of these
countries were recently examined in New York at the
fourth Meeting of Governmental Experts from Landlocked
and Transit Developing Countries and Representatives of
Donor Countries and Financial and Development
Institutions. Its outcome should be endorsed by the General
Assembly.
In North-East Asia, efforts are under way to conclude
a subregional agreement on transit transportation as a
follow-up to the decisions of the 1997 Ulan Bator meeting
on transit transportation. The conclusion of this agreement
will create a legal framework for facilitating transit trade
not only within the subregion, but well beyond it.
Sustainable development, environmental degradation,
illicit drug trafficking, HIV/AIDS, organized crime and
other transboundary problems should be adequately
addressed at the national, regional and global levels. The
“+5” review special sessions of the General Assembly held
or scheduled to be held as follow-ups to the United Nations
summit conferences are important not only for assessing the
work done, but also for giving a fresh impetus to the
implementation of their objectives at all levels.
At the national level, Mongolia, in close partnership
with the United Nations organizations and the non-
governmental organizations, successfully organized the
One-World Conference Series in 1998-1999. The aim of the
six national conferences was to raise awareness at the
grass-roots level of the commitments made at the global
conferences and to ensure their integrated and coordinated
follow-up.
Mongolia is committed to the promotion and
protection of human rights and supports the strengthening
of the existing international instruments in this field. We
believe that the approval at this session of the draft optional
protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women would mark an important
contribution to the protection and promotion of human
rights and the dignity of women the world over.
Continued gross violations of human rights make it
imperative to speed up the establishment of the
International Criminal Court. Mongolia highly appreciates
and fully supports the efforts of the international
community in this respect. Likewise, Mongolia joins other
States in condemning terrorist acts that are taking the lives
of an increasing number of innocent people in various parts
of the world and supports every effort of Member States
and of the international community as a whole to fight all
forms of terrorism and strengthen the relevant
international instruments.
This year, the United Nations Decade of
International Law is drawing to a close. The decade has
been instrumental in drawing the international
community's attention to the need for the codification and
progressive development of international law. Today,
international law is regulating many aspects of
international relations. I agree with the Secretary-General
that one of the greatest accomplishments of the twentieth
century is the creation of an international code of human
rights, to which the outgoing Decade has duly
contributed. One of the practical results of the Decade
was the adoption last year, on Mongolia's initiative, by
the General Assembly of a set of principles and
guidelines for international negotiations that could be
useful in conducting negotiations to manage international
relations, to peacefully settle disputes and to create new
international norms of conduct for States.
Fully conscious of the challenges that lie ahead,
mankind still looks forward to the twenty-first century
with great expectations and hope. I believe it is the
earnest hope and keen desire of all the peoples of the
world that the next century be far better in all respects,
more progressive and prosperous, than the outgoing one.
Where there is a will, there will surely be a way to
achieve it. It is up to Member States to make the dream
a reality. As the Secretary-General has underlined in his
report, we can do it.


Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure at the outset to offer
you my warmest congratulations on your election as
President of the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth
session. Your election to this high post reflects the value
the international community attaches to the role played by
your friendly country. We are confident of the friendly
relations between our two countries. We also know that
your expertise and commitment to international issues will
enrich the discussions of this session of the General
Assembly. My delegation pledges its full cooperation and
support to you to make your presidency a success.
I also take this opportunity to express my warmest
thanks and appreciation to our colleague Mr. Didier
Opertti, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, for his
great efforts as President at the previous session. I would
also like to salute Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his
great efforts in enhancing the administration and
performance of the United Nations and its mission to
serve international peace and security.
The Sultanate of Oman welcomes the admission at
this session of the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of
Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga to the membership of
the United Nations. We are confident that their
membership will reflect positively on the United Nations
and will help us further consolidate our efforts as an
international community to achieve the progress and
prosperity we all aspire to, in a way that promotes the
23

noble goals for which this important international forum
was created.
The unanimous decision to hold the millennium
summit during the fifty-fifth session of the General
Assembly is clear proof of the importance of that last
summit of this century. This is an essential and important
step that will enable our leaders to issue a declaration that
may be considered a plan of action. That declaration could
reformulate a new concept for economic success and
development for all peoples.
As we approach the next century with confidence, we
must focus our attention on restructuring the work of
international organizations in order to enrich and develop
the work of the United Nations and its relevant agencies,
such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
and other international and regional institutions, so that they
are able to function effectively for the future welfare and
prosperity of humanity.
We recognize the importance of the effective
management of these international institutions through the
generous and special financial and technical contributions
of developed nations and institutions. These contributions
must always meet the needs and priorities of reforming the
economies of developing nations, which form the largest
part of the global market and which provide a large part of
the world's natural resources and raw materials. The
development of these economies will undoubtedly bring
about a more stable world economy.
We call for the establishment of balanced rules and
regulations between the developed nations of the North and
the developing nations of the South in order to effect a
qualitative change in their relations. While bold change and
real sacrifices are needed to restructure the economies of
the developing world so that they can meet the
requirements of the global free market, there is a greater
need for the economically developed nations to take bold
and decisive steps in cancelling more debts, restructuring
the costs of manufactured goods and establishing a new
economic mechanism to provide loans and to re-regulate
the size of industries and lower global rates of inflation. We
also call for the establishment of an international reporting
system that will draw up periodic regional plans to enable
all regions to achieve the economic advances necessary to
overcome their economic difficulties.
We look with admiration and great interest to the
European Union's experience of economic integration as a
pilot project that aims at serving the economic prosperity of
the peoples of the European continent, the integration of
their cultural heritage and the elimination of their social
and political differences. Indeed, such a qualitative leap
in European society would undoubtedly contribute to a
more stable and balanced world, especially if it were
based on moral norms of international transparency. It
would surely be an excellent model which could be
emulated in other parts of the world in keeping with the
specific requirements of these regions and in a way that
responds to their traditions, their heritage and the
particularities of their culture. We believe that economic
development and trade are a bridge for communication
between civilizations.
Therefore, negotiations leading to the admission of
the rest of the developing countries to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) must be fair and just. Such
negotiations must recognize the importance of giving
developing nations an opportunity to see their trade and
their infant industries grow and an opportunity also to
consolidate their competitive edge, in the context of a
general commitment to the free market principles of
supply and demand.
Our world needs to rid the large markets of the
developed nations of dumping policies, market constraints
and other obstacles to free trade: free trade should not be
a way to destroy the economies of the developing
countries. A realistic balance between the interests of the
developed and the developing nations should be the aim
of the forthcoming WTO Ministerial-level conference in
Seattle. Such a balance should draw on the world's
experience since the end of the cold war and the
emergence of the new world order.
In the present international climate, the United
Nations bears the huge responsibility of creating the right
social and economic circumstances for better, more
harmonious coexistence and for peace and stability. That
responsibility creates an urgent need for more consultation
and dialogue between Member States, especially at the
regional level, towards restructuring United Nations
bodies and expanding the membership of the Security
Council.
We must encourage serious, realistic and flexible
thinking about the Council's role, responsibilities and
mandates in the service of international peace and security
to enable the Council to be more receptive and
realistically responsive to cultural and educational
pluralism and to the various political schools of thought
in human society. Expanded membership would also
24

enhance the role of the new forces that are currently
becoming more important through their influence on
international events.
Since the end of the cold war, we have heard the calls
for democracy, free trade and the free market economy as
ways of establishing greater harmony among humankind.
We believe that the road towards this objective must begin
with dialogue between civilizations on an international
platform of cultural norms, and based on the sound
principles of balanced political relations, interests and
mutual benefit in keeping with the needs of every culture
and civilization. The new ideas emanating from this
dialogue could be used as a new moral gateway to relations
between people in the new millennium and as a bond of
trust and fruitful cooperation between all cultures and
civilizations. It would certainly create a new and common
harmony in all patterns of life.
We support this human endeavour in the context of
General Assembly resolution 53/22 proclaiming the year
2001 as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among
Civilizations. We support any regional or multilateral action
that seeks to solve the political disputes still outstanding
between States, especially between neighbouring States,
which share common interests along with a common
border.
The Sultanate of Oman believes deeply in the
importance of quiet and meaningful dialogue between all
States and between all parties. Oman works alongside its
brothers in the Gulf Cooperation Council to consolidate a
positive climate and extend our common ground with
neighbouring countries. We do so in order to ensure that
common principles and rules are adopted and accepted to
form the basis for bilateral or collective dialogue on
outstanding problems.
Iraq is still subject to the sanctions regime imposed by
the Security Council in the aftermath of Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait in August 1990. Although the Security Council,
through the United Nations Special Commission
(UNSCOM), has tried to enforce its resolutions on the
destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction over the
last eight years, it has not yet been able to agree on a
unanimous policy towards Iraq. Consequently, the Iraqi
people are suffering greatly from the continuing sanctions.
Although the oil—for—food programme has been
implemented, it cannot satisfactorily meet the basic
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. In this context,
many international organizations and agencies working in
the field of health and other humanitarian services have
expressed their fears about the dire effects that threaten
the future of the Iraqi people.
The Council of the League of Arab States, in its
consultative session of 24 January 1999, adopted a call
for the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq to be lifted.
The Council appealed to all Arab Governments to make
every possible effort towards this end through cooperation
with the United Nations.
The Sultanate of Oman emphasizes the importance
of lifting the economic sanctions in order to end the
suffering of the Iraqi people. We call on the Security
Council to put its differences aside and adopt a positive
and unanimous policy towards Iraq. We also call on the
Iraqi Government to cooperate positively and fully with
the United Nations in implementing the remaining
resolutions, especially those relating to Kuwaiti prisoners
of war and missing persons.
The early signs of the long-awaited peace in the
Middle East, to which its people have long aspired,
fortunately coincide with the end of the century and the
beginning of the third millennium. All parties, especially
the Israeli Government, must take this opportunity to
write a new history based on coexistence and cooperation
among the peoples of the region, a region that so urgently
needs to enjoy the fruits of stability and development.
The establishment of an independent Palestinian
State will undoubtedly be an important pillar for the
conclusion of a comprehensive and just peace in the
Middle East. It will also serve as a real tool for the
development of cooperation and coexistence between the
Arab States and Israel.
We call on the Israeli Government to respond
quickly and implement the various obligations and
agreements concluded since Madrid. We also call upon
the Israeli Government to implement Security Council
resolutions on Lebanon: resolutions 425 (1978) and 426
(1978). We call upon Israel to resume negotiations on the
Syrian track at the point where they left off and to make
every effort to withdraw from occupied Syrian territory to
the established border of 4 June 1967.
Mutual security requirements between the Arabs and
Israelis on both sides of the border are of prime
importance. The legitimacy of such requirements justifies
negotiations on the basis of the principle of land for
peace. Israel must feel secure and comfortable about the
general Arab attitude towards peace.
25

Peace agreements signed with Egypt and Jordan have
offered the clearest proof of the Arabs' commitment to
peace and their absolute willingness to participate, along
with Israel, in the establishment of a secure, peaceful and
developed Middle East. Arab positions across a range of
international activities and forums have demonstrated the
seriousness of their desire to live in peace and security with
Israel.
We are about to enter a new century. We feel hopeful
and ambitious for a future in which the security and
stability of human life will improve. However, a number of
conflicts and hotbeds of tension continue to cause concern
for the international community.
In Africa, conflicts and confrontations among countries
remain the biggest source of suffering for the African
people. Therefore, the United Nations is required to exert
greater efforts in support of the Organization of African
Unity in its endeavour to mediate in the various conflicts,
including those between Ethiopia and Eritrea, in the Great
Lakes region, in West Africa and in Somalia. We hope that
Africa will thus be able to free itself from the vestiges of
the past and enter a new era of freedom, economic
development and security for its people and for the world
at large.
The giant continent, Asia, continues to offer the most
dynamic current force for human development. Despite the
successes achieved by the Asian people in various spheres
of life, unrest, civil wars and sources of instability are still
abundant.
The Muslim Asian country of Afghanistan still suffers
from deep and complex internal conflicts. Therefore we
sincerely hope that all the Afghan leaders will take
advantage of past lessons and use the world community's
desire to help them to end their crisis and to give the
Afghan people the opportunity to heal their painful wounds.
In East Asia, we call on all parties in the Korean
peninsula to work towards ending the conflict and the
achievement of peace. Then the Korean people in North
and South Korea can express their desire for a secure and
peaceful future.
We have a deep sense of pain for the human tragedy
in the Balkans. Reckless policies led to instability, a huge
waste of resources, the flight of defenceless people and loss
of life and destruction of property. We are thankful for the
timely intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization in Kosovo, especially after the failure to carry
out the Rambouillet Agreement, to put an end to the pain
and suffering of the provinces' inhabitants.
As we praise the human role assumed by the world
community in helping the displaced and the refugees in
the Balkans, we hope that those great efforts will continue
and thus conclude this noble task. We also appreciate the
efforts of the Secretary-General to restore peace and
stability to the region.
The world still faces the nuclear threat as a result of
the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and the
efforts of many States outside what is known as the
nuclear club to acquire the technology for this dreadful
weapon. The States seeking these weapons still feel
threatened politically and militarily and are worried about
their security, sovereignty and future capabilities.
Making a realistic and careful assessment of this
situation would definitely lead us to conclude that there
must have been fundamental and legitimate reasons why
such countries would choose to spend large amounts of
money to secure such weapons at a time when these
assets could have been spent on the economic and social
development of their people. Among the principal and
legitimate reasons for this choice is that the major States
which already possess nuclear weapons and technology
did not do enough to guarantee the non-proliferation of
this technology.
The phenomenon that the major Powers alone can
shape choices about peace and war in areas of the
developing world may be one of the strongest reasons for
the sudden eruption of conflagrations in such areas.
Therefore nuclear States, especially the permanent
members of the Security Council, should undertake the
necessary measures that will guarantee the security of
non-nuclear States and deter the use or threat of use of
nuclear weapons. The United Nations, through the
Security Council, must adopt binding resolutions in
accordance with the Charter to protect the world from the
threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction. The arms control conference which is still
debating secondary issues of technical dimensions must
therefore seek to reach positive conclusions as soon as
possible.
At the last session we expressed our concern over
what had befallen the economies of the Asian countries.
We also expressed our faith in the ability of these
countries to overcome the economic crisis and the crash
that hit the financial markets.
26

Today we witness an encouraging recovery in the
Asian economies — a result of the determination of these
countries, especially the States of the Association of South-
East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to protect their economies
through exemplary solidarity.
We would like to applaud the important role played by
those States which provided financial assistance. We pay
tribute to the role played by the world financial institutions,
especially the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund. They halted the danger of deterioration in the world
economy and restored confidence in Asian markets.
However, these two institutions should review their
conditions for providing loans to developing nations to help
their economies. In most cases, these conditions fail to
achieve their planned and targeted goals primarily because
of the enormous social and political problems which they
create.
The Earth Summit for the environment and
development, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, set an
agenda for the twenty-first century that is now viewed as
the basis upon which international partnership and
collective responsibility can work to put an end to poverty,
hunger, ill health and the deterioration of ecosystems, and
to achieve sustainable development the only way for
humanity to ensure progress and prosperity for present and
future generations.
My country takes a comprehensive view of
environmental issues. We believe that the protection of the
environment is a responsibility for everyone to share. In
this context, my country devotes a great segment of its
resources to continuing to implement the Rio agenda and
effective and objective participation in environmental and
development forums on many international, regional and
national levels. We also continue to enact and update
environmental laws in order to assure adaptation to the best
standards of environmental protection against the dangers
of pollution and to guarantee the implementation of the
international and regional environmental agreements that
my country has signed.
My country looks forward to joining the World Trade
Organization (WTO) soon. We hope to participate in the
work of the Organization as a fully fledged member and to
play our role effectively. We thank all our trade partners
which have expressed encouragement and understanding for
our application for membership. We are determined to work
hand—in—hand with all members to consolidate the
multilateral trade system and help it flourish.
Next November the American city of Seattle will
host the third ministerial conference of the World Trade
Organization. The Sultanate of Oman attaches special
importance to this conference because it will be a prelude
to the new phase of multilateral trade negotiations, the
Millennium Round, which should contribute to opening
the way for free and prosperous global trade.
Probably one of the most important issues facing
developing countries is the issue of the liberalization of
the service sector. Although its liberalization may have
some benefits for developing countries in terms of the
flow of foreign capital, technology and modern
administrative and technical expertise, it will inevitably be
accompanied by huge challenges. This is particularly true
in the light of open competition from the service sector in
developed nations. Oman expects the world community to
take measures that would help developing nations develop
their service sectors in order to guarantee them a
comparable and viable share in the global services
market.
We appreciate the admirable international efforts and
good intentions to establish an original global legislative
structure as a basis for international relations in different
areas. However, we always return to the clear truth that
in the Charter of the United Nations are enshrined the
purposes and principles that we must all work to preserve
in the interest of the future security and wellbeing of all
humanity.


On behalf of my delegation
and on my own behalf, it is with great satisfaction that I
wish to extend to you, Sir, our congratulations on your
well-deserved election to preside over the General
Assembly at its fifty-fourth session, which is coinciding
with the end of a momentous century. It is indeed a
source of immense pleasure and pride to my delegation
and myself to see you presiding over this forum where
you, as the representative here of the South West Africa
People’s Organization for many years, waged an
unrelenting struggle for the independence of your country,
Namibia, which was crowned with success in 1990. Your
assumption of this high office is a fitting tribute to the
struggle of the many sons and daughters of Africa over
the years for the total emancipation of Africa from
colonial rule. I wish to assure you of the fullest
cooperation of my delegation in the discharge of the
heavy responsibilities entrusted to you. I wish also to
seize this opportunity to convey to your predecessor, Mr.
Didier Opertti, our appreciation for a job well done, and
we salute him for all the efforts he has made.
23

I should also like to welcome the new Members of our
Organization: the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of
Tonga and the Republic of Kiribati.
To our Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for whom
my country has great esteem, I wish to renew our
friendship and to reiterate how much we have always
appreciated his wisdom and his vision. His being at the
helm of the world body is indeed one of the few
consolations for Africa, a continent which otherwise has
little voice within the Organization.
This annual occasion, here at this forum, affords us a
unique opportunity to express our views as Member States
on issues that are of concern to us as members of the
human family, as part of specific regions of the world and
in our capacity as nations. The 170 items on the
Assembly’s agenda at this session are clear testimony to the
range of issues confronting the international community as
we approach the coming millennium. It is not, however,
always easy to separate these various levels of concern.
They are obviously interconnected, and all the more so for
countries such as Ethiopia, whose fates are affected,
positively or negatively, by what takes place internationally
and by what the United Nations does and does not do.
It goes without saying that developing countries in
general, and the least developed countries in particular, as
a group, face the most serious problems in all areas of
international life. Problems of poverty, underdevelopment
and the debt burden are among the multifarious problems
the developing countries are grappling with today. As a
least developed country, Ethiopia has its own share of these
problems, the magnitude of which is all too obvious, even
as we are making a determined effort to overcome them.
In this statement I will not try to go into all the
problems facing developing countries today. Instead, I
should like to focus on one issue: collective security,
especially in relation to its impact on developing countries,
those in Africa in particular, and how the United Nations
has failed them in this critical area. For Ethiopia this is all
the more justified and timely inasmuch as we have been the
victim of aggression — not for the first time in our
history — for over a year now.
The United Nations has been important to us, and the
promise contained in its Charter to be our collective
instrument for international peace and security and a vehicle
for international cooperation in all areas of human
endeavour has been a source of hope. But we in Ethiopia
are not so sure that the hope we have is always justified,
both as Africans and as Ethiopians.
From the vantage point of Africa, it is indeed
difficult to assert with confidence that the Organization is
also ours. This must also apply to the rest of the
developing world. But the African case is unique.
Whether it is in the area of economic cooperation or with
respect to peace and security, our continent continues to
be a region of the world which is the least favoured for
effective and meaningful cooperation. The “We the
peoples of the United Nations” mentioned in the Preamble
to the Charter and the lofty aspirations contained therein
continue to be distant dreams for Africa.
This might be regarded by some as an exaggerated
claim and an attempt to shift the blame for a predicament
which is of Africa’s own making and therefore a harsh
judgment on the performance of the United Nations. We
in Ethiopia would be the first to acknowledge the critical
value for us of the very many types of cooperation we
have with the United Nations and its various agencies,
some of which have indeed been very effective. It would
be unfair to the Organization and to many of its dedicated
staff for us to fail to acknowledge this.
In this regard, a balanced evaluation of the
performance of the United Nations cannot fail to take
note of the good work being done by the Organization in
the economic, social and humanitarian areas. This is apart
from the indispensable role that the United Nations and
its various agencies, most particularly its specialized
agencies, play in harmonizing the activities of nations in
various critical spheres.
It is also true that Africa and, in particular, some of
its individual countries, appear to have a unique way of
ensuring that available opportunities are missed for
making progress for peace and development. But still the
African condition can hardly be explained only in terms
of omission or commission by the people of the continent.
It would suffice to refer to the cold war and to the
super-Power rivalry spawned by that episode and to the
havoc wrought by it in Africa to be reminded that
Africa’s pains are not always of its own making.
Whatever the causes for Africa’s predicament,
however, the spirit of common destiny, interdependence
and the ideals of the Charter of the United Nations should
have obliged the international community to be more
forthcoming in rendering effective cooperation to regions
24

such as Africa so that they can overcome the obstacles to
development faced by their peoples.
The fact that there is no international cooperation at
present in the spirit of the United Nations Charter is
nowhere more evident than in the circumstances
surrounding the debt burden, which continues to remain the
most critical factor hindering development and the
alleviation of poverty. There have so far been no effective
steps taken internationally to alleviate this scourge, and
there is no visible remedy on the horizon. This is a telling
testimony to how much the promise contained in the
Charter about international cooperation has remained an
empty slogan. If our vision for the United Nations for the
century we are entering does not incorporate a remedy to
this danger, then for the bulk of humanity the Organization
is bound to be more irrelevant than it is today.
It is not only that the United Nations is about to enter
the next century with little to show in bringing about
genuine international cooperation for combating poverty.
Even more worrying is that it is going to do so with its
credibility very much in tatters with regard to its collective
security system, which at present commands little trust as
a collective instrument of the international community for
world peace and security.
Whether during the cold war or since it, in this area
the United Nations, more often than not, has remained a
custodian not of the collective security interests of the
people of the world, but of the special security interests of
those who count. Here is where double standards abound,
even with respect to the defense of some sacrosanct
principles of international law.
Africa can hardly be proud of the way it has handled
even the very little opportunity it has had for establishing
durable peace and security in the continent. Even after
having granted that the difficult socio-economic conditions
of the region have been the major causes for the African
dilemma in this area, the fact still remains that bad
governance, mismanagement of resources, lack of tolerance
for diversity and human rights violations have indeed
fuelled some of the conflicts in our continent. Therefore we
cannot absolve ourselves fully from taking part of the
blame. In the final analysis, we have to find our own
solution to these problems.
But, on the other hand, the fact remains that Africa
has received little effective international cooperation, in
particular from the United Nations, for sorting out its
difficulties in the area of peace and security. Conflicts in
Africa have had the fate of either being neglected or,
when not neglected, being judged and handled by
different standards. Let me give a couple of illustrations.
The genocide in Rwanda is a source of shame for
Africa, but it was also a reminder of the double standards
to which Africa has been subjected. The fact that Somalia
and its people have been left to their own devices,
regardless of the consequences for the people of Somalia
and for the peace and stability of their neighbours, is yet
another indication of the types of conflicts which elicit, or
fail to elicit, the serious concern of those who count for
galvanizing the efforts of the United Nations for action to
discharge its responsibilities for collective security. Why
should it matter to those who set the agenda for what the
Security Council does if the chaos in Somalia becomes a
breeding ground for terrorism, as long as the threat is
limited only to those who have little voice in the Security
Council?
The conflict in Somalia is indeed complex, but it is
no more complex than other conflicts in other parts of the
world. Somalia is in turmoil and has been for the last
nine years, not because the crisis is intractable, but
because Somalia is neglected. That country has failed to
be on the top of the United Nations agenda, not because
it has no legitimate claim to be a priority for the United
Nations collective security system, but because the
interests of those who count are not affected. This also
applies more or less to Angola and Sierra Leone, and
earlier to Liberia.
In short, the United Nations has failed Africa, and
now stands, one foot into the next century, with this
record. In connection with Somalia, I should like to state
that Ethiopia, the country mandated by the Organization
of African Unity (OAU) to follow up and assist in
resolving the crisis in Somalia, fully supports the
initiatives expounded by Mr. Ismail Omar Guelleh,
President of the Republic of Djibouti from this rostrum
last week in his capacity as current Chairman of the Inter-
Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD).
The experience of my own country over the last year
and a half and more speaks volumes about how the
United Nations can fail an African country deemed to
have no option other than submit to unjust decisions by
the powerful. In effect, what the United Nations said to
Ethiopia was that Article 51 of the Charter, which
provides for the inherent right of sovereign nations to
self-defence, did not apply to poor nations such as
Ethiopia. That has been our experience in our attempts to
25

ensure the peaceful resolution of the Ethiopian-Eritrean
crisis caused by the unprovoked Eritrean aggression against
us.
Until May 1998, Ethiopia was nurturing the peace that
it had finally achieved after decades of turmoil. The
Eritrean problem — one of the sources of instability for
Ethiopia — was settled, with Ethiopia leading the way in
recognizing the new nation of Eritrea. Ethiopia became a
bulwark of peace in our subregion — a fact which was
recognized by many. By demobilizing half a million troops
and allocating the barest minimum from its budget — less
than 2 per cent of its gross domestic product — to defence,
the country was making it clear in its actions that poor
nations have time to wage war only against their principal
enemy, poverty — poverty and backwardness.
The new orientation of the country did produce
dividends, most of all in terms of economic growth:
average GDP growth of over 7 per cent per year was
achieved, after a difficult period of transition. But then,
tragedy struck and we fell victim to Eritrean aggression.
The unprovoked aggression against us by Eritrea in May
1998 taught us the lesson that peace is not always achieved
by the unilateral decision of nations so long as there are
rogue States that worship the gun and with leaders who
have no domestic limitations on the power they exercise or
on the decisions they make.
Eritrea has become a source of tragedy not only for
Ethiopia but also for its own people and for the countries
of the subregion. No sooner had it achieved formal
independence, in 1993, than it provoked a fight with the
Sudan, to be followed by an unprovoked onslaught on
Yemen in November 1995. Continuing the same pattern of
lawlessness, in 1996 Eritrea again went ahead and claimed,
by use of force, part of Djibouti’s territory — a reckless
attempt which was defused in time, thanks also to efforts
by Ethiopia.
The Eritrean aggression against Ethiopia in May 1998
was therefore part of the same vivid pattern of behaviour as
before, behaviour which has now made the country a major
source of instability for our subregion, particularly in
Somalia, where Eritrea’s destructive activities have caused
even more havoc in a nation with no functioning State at
all. Thus, consistent with its ignoble motive of exploiting
the anarchy and lawlessness in Somalia to advance its
irresponsible policy of destabilizing the countries in the
Horn of Africa, Eritrea is actively collaborating with the
warlords in Somalia by arming and training them and
financing their fratricidal conflict, thereby exacerbating the
already volatile and unclear state of affairs in the country
with all the attendant adverse consequences for peace and
stability in our subregion.
Ever since the onset of the Eritrean aggression
against Ethiopia, people have been asking how one of the
youngest and poorest nations on earth, whose people have
barely emerged from the trauma of a protracted liberation
struggle, can have the capacity to embark upon one of the
most destructive campaigns of destabilization the entire
Horn of Africa subregion — or even the whole of Africa
for that matter — has ever seen. Over and above the
question of Eritrea’s capacity, people have been
wondering what the motive can be that is driving such
acts on the part of a new Member of the family of
nations, acts with serious implications for peace and
security in our region.
The answer to these questions is not difficult to find.
To be a destructive force among nations does not require
any special capacity or resources. Small States can create
havoc and make life difficult for the international
community just as large States can. In fact, an extremist
group on the fringes of international life, with no
elaborate organizational structure, can without much effort
succeed in destabilizing an entire region let alone a
vulnerable subregion like ours. In effect, it does not seem
as if it requires any special capacity to be a rogue State.
Rogue States as such are not born, they become so of
their own volition.
That is what we see in Eritrea today: the Eritrean
Government is now working hand in glove not only with
disgruntled groups in our subregion but also with
international terrorists, training, financing and giving them
all-round support in their ultimate objective of
destabilizing the States of the subregion. We do not
believe the source of this Eritrean behaviour is external.
It is internal: it emanates from the nature of the domestic
political structure in that country. If the domestic political
process in a country has no constraining factors to speak
of on its leadership, this, sooner or later, is bound to have
a negative impact on the peace and security of the States
of that subregion.
In Eritrea this phenomenon is clearly visible today.
A total absence of domestic institutions necessary for a
normal State; the lack of accountability on the part of the
leadership; the non-existence of even a semblance of
checks and balances — in effect the absence of a
constitutional order — are the distinguishing features of
Eritrea today. Pluralism; freedom of association and
26

expression; the right to express dissent — are unknown in
Eritrea. Democratic elections are, of course, unheard of
there. In fact, Eritrea has nothing to do with the
international community in terms of observance of
fundamental human rights and freedoms and good
governance since it is, for all practical purposes, ruled by
the whims of one man. The net effect of these domestic
political characteristics and their impact on peace and
security in our subregion is that more than any other people
it is, in the final analysis, the Eritrean people that are
suffering most, bearing the brunt of the hardship resulting
from their Government’s destabilizing policies and activities
in the Horn of Africa.
No one who has closely followed this tragedy visited
on Ethiopia by the Eritrean leadership can be unaware of
how much effort Ethiopia has made, for over nine months,
to ensure the reversal of the Eritrean aggression through
peaceful means. But it was to no avail. And, most
regrettably, the United Nations failed us. In contrast, I
should like to express my Government’s admiration and
gratitude for the commendable stand taken by OAU and
Africa throughout the crisis in defence of the principles on
which this Organization was founded.
However, despite the efforts of the OAU, Eritrea did
not listen. The United Nations pretended, even though it
knew better, that there had been no aggression. The
Security Council went even further, as did some in the
international community, in a coordinated effort to punish
the victim of aggression, without so much as a word about
the aggression or about the gross violations of international
law committed by a country known to have developed the
habit of acting in a lawless manner.
The members of the Security Council knew full well
right from the outset that Eritrea had committed a naked
and unprovoked act of aggression against Ethiopia. Yet they
chose to characterize a blatant violation of a fundamental
principle of international law as a mere border dispute.
This, to say the least, is an evasion of the primary
responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance
of international peace and security. It clearly signified a
failure on the part of the Council to uphold the most
hallowed principle of international law, namely, the
prohibition of the use of force in international relations,
except in self-defence. It is a negation of the very concept
of collective security in which all States, big and small,
placed their confidence when they subscribed to the Charter
of the United Nations.
As if to underscore its failure to uphold the
international rule of law, the Security Council, in its very
first resolution on the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, adopted
on 26 June 1998, demanded an immediate ceasefire, in
effect rewarding aggression. What better demonstration
could there be of the Council’s failure to take a
determined stand against aggression by demanding that it
be reversed before calling for a ceasefire? What better
incentive could there be for aggressors like Eritrea to
continue with their aggression and reap even more fruits
from their wanton acts?
Even more disheartening and gratuitous was the
statement issued on 23 June 1999 by the Security Council
reminding us of “our primary responsibility to feed our
peoples”, as if poor nations did not have the right to
defend their sovereignty. Or was it meant to imply that
the very notion of sovereignty is of no consequence at all
for a poor country like Ethiopia? That, history will recall,
was what the League of Nations told us, if not in so
many words, more than 60 years ago. But this was not
what we expected from the United Nations today.
To make matters worse, the Security Council chose,
on 10 February 1999, through resolution 1227 (1999), to
urge States to end sales of arms both to the aggressor and
to the victim, while at the same time continuing to
deliberate on how the peace proposal submitted by the
Organization of African Unity, and already accepted by
Ethiopia, could be modified to make it acceptable to the
aggressor at the expense of the victim.
This was again the essence of the informal
deliberations by the Security Council on 24 February
1999. The aggressor country was in effect told to wait
until the victim of aggression gave in to pressure.
The refusal by a poor nation to accept insult, a
nation which happened to be the victim of aggression,
obviously entails certain consequences. The punishment
meted out has had almost no limits. It has included
financial institutions changing the rules of the game in
midstream. In the case of Ethiopia, they saw fit to
abrogate ongoing programmes based on non-technical
considerations that had absolutely nothing to do with the
results of actual performance evaluations. That has been
the experience of Ethiopia with the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), which suspended its cooperation
with Ethiopia on political grounds, although it knew full
well that it had absolutely no cause for that action on the
basis of the relevant criteria.
27

Once the tone was set by the Security Council, others
found it easy to overlook the injustice involved and added
their weight to a stance which made a mockery of
elementary justice. The European Union and other
institutions and countries jumped on the bandwagon,
making it clear to Ethiopia that a poor nation is not entitled
to defend itself and that not heeding this warning would
have its consequences. And it did. Ethiopia’s fault was one
and only one, and that was its insistence that aggression
cannot and must not be rewarded through the use of
whatever pretext, including calls for an unconditional
ceasefire, which was demanded by the aggressor and
thought to be in accord with the interests of those who
count. The sovereign rights of the victim did not count.
That was the implication for our whole region of the
lawless Eritrean philosophy of grabbing land first and then
inviting the victims for talks.
I should not, however, give the impression that
everybody has been inconsiderate to my country in its hour
of need. Indeed, there are countries and institutions that
duly value partnership in development which stood by us,
realizing that discontinuing development assistance to the
victim of aggression would be tantamount to rewarding that
aggression. Those countries have not only continued their
assistance but also, in some cases, increased it. On behalf
of the people of Ethiopia, I should like to express our deep
gratitude to those countries and institutions, whose
demonstration of solidarity we will always cherish.
In the light of this experience, it is indeed difficult to
keep intact our trust in the United Nations and in
international cooperation. It is also difficult to have faith in
the efficacy of the United Nations collective security
system.
The United Nations cannot avoid sharing the blame for
the bloodshed and destruction that followed the nine-month
Eritrean intransigence. The Ethiopian-Eritrean crisis
eventually led to major fighting, not only because the
aggressor was intransigent and refused to give peace a
chance, but also because the United Nations failed to speak
in defence of principles of international law.
With respect to the aggression against Ethiopia by
Eritrea, it is the justified feeling of the Ethiopian people
that the failure of the United Nations to stand up for its
principles is indeed comparable to the injustice done to my
country by the League of Nations in 1936.
But this episode has wider implications over and
above Ethiopia. It raises a fundamental question with regard
to the ability of the United Nations to be a guardian of
the principles of international law — a guardianship
which would have no financial implications when limited
to a mere affirmation of principles. The United Nations
has shown us that it cannot even do this. Why this should
be so calls for a response, which, if given with candour,
should invite drastic measures so that we can have a
United Nations which provides a home to all in equal
measure.
As for Ethiopia’s commitment to peace, that cannot
be questioned, as has been made clear consistently since
Eritrea’s aggression. Ethiopia’s position has always been
consistent. Aggression, we have said, cannot be rewarded.
Peace requires its reversal. That is what every nation
would have demanded if it had found itself in Ethiopia’s
position. Ethiopia has asked for nothing more.
Eritrea now says it is prepared to do what it could
have done a year and half ago — something that the
United Nations never dared to ask it to do. While this in
itself is Ethiopia’s vindication, experience has nonetheless
taught us a lesson: we must ensure that there are no
loopholes in any agreement reached on the withdrawal of
Eritrean troops from Ethiopian territory occupied by
force. This is the nature of the ongoing dialogue we are
now engaged in with the OAU. There is absolutely no
reason why it should be difficult to address the legitimate
concerns of the victim of aggression with regard to the
clarity of the commitments undertaken by the aggressor
country.
Indeed, the principles involved should be protected
in the interests not only of Ethiopia but also of our
subregion and beyond. The lawlessness and contempt for
the principles of international law demonstrated by
Eritrea, which have now poisoned the whole region, must
be contained. This can be done at the minimum by
sending a clear message to its leadership that enough is
enough and that aggression should not pay. This is all the
more necessary with respect to those who, in the absence
of even a semblance of institutions of governance in the
country, are above the law and have little accountability.
That is why we have insisted, and continue to insist, that
Eritrea must be allowed to gain nothing from its
lawlessness. That is why we have insisted, and continue
to insist — not without sacrifice — that there should be
no loopholes in agreements concluded so that the
principle that aggression should not be rewarded is
underlined clearly and with no ambiguity. We thus remain
hopeful — hoping against hope — that Ethiopia’s
concerns will be addressed adequately, thereby making it
28

easier to put behind us the nightmare created by the
Eritrean aggression.
The United Nations is at a crossroads. It cannot limp
along and enter the next century with all its weaknesses
unattended. Reforms are necessary. The Security Council
cannot remain as it is, unrepresentative and unresponsive to
the interests of the majority. It is still not too late to restore
confidence in the collective security system envisioned in
the Charter of our Organization more than half a century
ago. The credibility of the United Nations needs to be
revived. How can the United Nations command the trust of
all Member States and their peoples? That is one of the
questions with which the United Nations will have to
grapple as we enter the twenty-first century.


It is a particular
honour for me to address the Assembly on behalf of the
Government and people of the Dominican Republic and to
take this opportunity to express my warmest congratulations
to you, Sir, on your recent election as President of the fifty-
fourth session of the General Assembly.
I would also like to commend the excellent work of
that outstanding representative of our region, the Foreign
Minister of Uruguay, Mr. Didier Opertti, who so efficiently
conducted the proceedings of the fifty-third session of the
General Assembly.
Let me also wish Mr. Kofi Annan every success in
the important and delicate tasks he is carrying out as
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
This venerable institution, the United Nations, was
founded more than half a century ago with the lofty goal
of safeguarding peace among nations and the integrity of
peoples. The United Nations has made a significant
contribution to preventing armed conflict, reducing
tension, resolving differences, promoting negotiation and
agreements, and encouraging tolerance and non-violence.
But in a world that is becoming increasingly
complex in the wake of an era marked by bipolar
confrontation between two models of civilization, and
with the rise of a technological revolution that has
contributed to an accelerated sense of time, a reduction in
distances and an increase in expectations, the United
Nations must exercise renewed leadership in order to
confront this new set of circumstances which, while they
represent tremendous opportunities for the peoples of the
world, may also threaten their future.
It is no longer just a matter of preventing war and
conflict; that unavoidable task will always be expected of
the Organization. The United Nations must ensure for
every human being on this earth a dignified, hopeful and
decent existence.
Never before has the world accumulated so much
wealth. At no other time in history has humankind been
able, as it is today, to produce everything it needs in the
way of food, clothing, shelter, communications and
transportation. The level of wealth that exists today is
such that each and every day, more than a trillion dollars
circulates in international capital markets for purely
speculative purposes, producing what today is known as
a “casino economy”.
In order to give a rough idea of what that volume of
capital means, I must point out that a single day of
operations in the financial markets is equivalent to twice
the annual gross national product of all the African
countries. However, that wealth is concentrated in just a
few countries that today are identified as central
countries, and inside each of them wealth is concentrated
in a few hands that control industry, finance,
transportation and communications. The concentration of
wealth in a few countries, and the influence that those
4

countries exert in the media, leads to the dissemination of
a consumer philosophy that in turn contributes to the
adoption of artificial lifestyles and behaviour patterns that
are conducive to waste, luxury and ostentation.
Alongside all this wealth, however, the world has
never suffered so much poverty. Today, 1.3 billion people
live in extreme poverty, and most of them suffer from
hunger every day. In such a wealthy world, 3 billion people
survive on less than $2 a day, and each year 50 million
children are permanently harmed because of malnutrition.
Some 1.5 billion people have no access to drinking water,
and more than 2 billion have no access to drainage or
sewerage facilities. A large percentage have very limited
access to education, health care and housing, and hundreds
of millions are unemployed or have no secure or permanent
income.
This stark and horrifying contrast between wealth and
poverty constitutes a huge challenge for all the nations of
the world and the United Nations system as we approach
the twenty-first century. There are no magic formulas for
resolving this situation. Only the concerted efforts of all
nations, rich and poor, working to the same end in a spirit
of solidarity and a sense of humanity will make it possible
for the whole of humankind to share on a basis of equality
and social justice in the prodigious and unprecedented
creation of wealth in this era.
For some time, in various international forums, a set
of balanced and reasonable ideas have been put forward,
and if they were applied they would contribute to a
significant reduction in poverty and to the creation of
opportunities.
The world welcomed with great joy and satisfaction
the decision adopted by the countries members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
to use 0.7 of their gross national product to finance a
programme aimed at halving by the year 2015 the
percentage of the inhabitants of developing countries living
in extreme poverty. Despite the public commitment made
by those countries, cooperation for development fell to 0.22
of the combined product of the donor countries in 1997,
which is the lowest figure since the 1950s.
It is unfair that while there is a daily transfer of over
$1 trillion from the central or highly developed countries,
there is a tendency to decrease official development
assistance for the least developed countries.
The developing countries have watched their external
debt climb from $1.6 trillion in 1993 to $2.5 trillion in
1998. The external debt of Latin America increased from
$44.786 billion in 1980 to $669 billion in 1997 — an
almost fifteen-fold increase in 17 years. Interest payments,
which remained stable between 1980 and 1994 at a level
between $24 billion and $28 billion, increased sharply, in
1997 reaching $42 billion.
The current proposal is to reduce the debt of only
the heavily indebted poor countries. It seems to us that
although this is a very significant first initiative, it is not
sufficient because it excludes a group of countries,
including the Dominican Republic, that have made
significant efforts to achieve progress and peace, yet face
a titanic struggle to overcome underdevelopment and
poverty.
Forgiving external debt, or at least reducing it
significantly, or eliminating the interest would be a just
acknowledgement of those countries that, in spite of their
internal difficulties, have adopted strict adjustment
measures that have made it possible for them scrupulously
to honour their international obligations. Forgiving
external debt, or reducing it in any other way, would be
a true gesture of international solidarity aimed at reducing
poverty. Furthermore, the resources that would be freed
as a result would greatly benefit the creditor countries and
the international commercial banking community, since
the purchasing power of poor nations would be increased,
thereby generating a new dynamism in the world
economy.
The so-called Asian crisis generated international
turbulence, led to the Russian crisis and had a similar
impact on the Brazilian economy, which in turn affected
the Southern Cone economies. In analysing that crisis, the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund agreed
that it resulted from factors generated by the international
flow of capital in the Asian stock markets. As a result of
that situation, which has been identified as the first major
crisis of the globalized economy, the economists of both
institutions have proposed the creation of a new
international financial architecture. That new architecture
would seek to stabilize the financial markets through the
adoption of a set of careful measures, both national and
international, to prevent another financial crisis in the
future.
These proposals would seem to be wise and
beneficial. However, we believe that a true new
international financial structure, as the focal point of a
5

global economy, should include the element of international
solidarity and cooperation aimed at the introduction of
measures to reduce poverty. We cannot understand why
more than $1 trillion dollars circulates in international
financial transactions every day while not a penny of those
resources goes to the world's poor. All of Haiti's problems
would be solved with only a single minute's worth of
banking transactions on the international market. The same
could be said of Nicaragua and of Honduras, and even of
our own country, the Dominican Republic.
The eradication of poverty is not an illusory goal.
With the wealth currently circulating world-wide, we could
restore a sense of dignity to each and every human being.
Determining how to achieve this is the big challenge facing
this Organization in the twenty-first century.
To meet that challenge the United Nations itself has to
go through a process of change and reform, beginning with
acceptance that all its Member States are equal, with no
differentiation between the powerful ones that possess the
right of veto and the poor ones that have been marginalized
in the very Organization that represents them. There is no
doubt that we now have a unique opportunity to reform the
Security Council. The Dominican Republic is convinced
that reform of the Security Council must be carried out in
keeping with the principles of equitable geographical
distribution and the equal sovereignty of Member States,
since no reform will be acceptable if it leads to
discriminatory treatment of developing nations by
developed nations.
It is in this spirit that the Dominican Republic aspires
to election in the near future to a seat as a non-permanent
member of the Council. Our country, although small in
size, has a pacifist tradition that it would hope to channel
into and combine with the basic principles that should guide
the Security Council.
The Dominican Republic is proud to have introduced
resolution 47/5, by which the Assembly proclaimed 1999 as
the International Year of Older Persons. Now that the Year
is drawing to a close, we are especially proud of its
international success. In the Dominican Republic, thanks to
the concerted efforts of the Government, in September
1998, our Congress approved a bill of rights for older
persons and established a national committee to oversee its
implementation. We consider this to have been our most
important contribution the Year.
As host country to the International Research and
Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
(INSTRAW), we wish once again to stress the
fundamental importance of the Institute, which is one of
only three United Nations entities headquartered in a
developing country, and the only one situated in the
region of Latin America and the Caribbean. It is as
important as it was in 1978, when it was created to
promote the advancement of women, especially in our
developing nations. We therefore appeal to all
Governments to contribute to revitalizing the Institute so
that it may continue its important work.
We are confident that this great Organization will
renew itself and will act with the visionary leadership for
which it was created for by its founders at the San
Francisco Conference, in a world that expects greater
solidarity among nations and a more just, equitable and
humane international order.
I wish to conclude by calling on States Members of
the United Nations to participate in and support the
Millennium Assembly. We believe that that important
assembly will reaffirm our commitment to the United
Nations Charter, by highlighting the mission of the United
Nations system in the twenty-first century in the light of
the problems posed by globalization and of the need to
ensure that that process will be of benefit to us all.


Brazil
congratulates you, Sir, on your election as President of
the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. Your
personal record in defence of democracy and human
rights, which was forged in the struggle of the people of
Namibia for liberty and self-determination, offers an
inspiring example for our work.
4

As a sister nation of Uruguay, we take pride in the
work done by your predecessor, my friend, Minister Didier
Opertti. I would like to express the appreciation and
gratitude of the Brazilian Government for his decisive role
in presiding over the fifty-third session.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan is equally deserving of
special recognition. In these times of far-reaching and
uncharted challenges before the international community,
his sense of proportion and the strength of his serene
leadership have been valuable aids in the search for realistic
and innovative solutions. We appreciate and support his
endeavours in the cause of peace, development and justice.
The Brazilian Government warmly greets the
admission of Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga, which have just
joined the United Nations family.
Year after year, for over half a century, we have
gathered here to discuss and debate the issues of our time.
Year after year, the representatives of the Member countries
of the United Nations have come to this rostrum to set forth
their vision of global affairs and to provide analysis and to
propose solutions.
As the requirements of our societies become ever
greater over time, there grows a sense of an ever-widening
gulf between our words and our deeds, a distance that
serves only to feed the scepticism of some and the
pessimism of others.
Whenever an unfolding crisis and its human tragedy
break through international indifference and become
newsworthy, it is to the United Nations that the public
opinion of our countries looks for meaningful answers.
Unfortunately, however, the international community
feels compelled to act in a coordinated fashion, mobilizing
the necessary resources and political will, only when long-
festering problems threaten to get out of hand, making a
satisfactory solution all the more difficult.
The upshot is a sense of frustration and impatience
towards the United Nations. This may be because the
necessary initiatives are in the end adopted outside the
United Nations framework, as was the case in Kosovo. Or
it may be because the measures agreed are not up to the
concrete needs, as we have seen in East Timor. Or it may
even be because the United Nations finds itself once again
confronted, as in Angola, with well-known conflicts of
catastrophic proportions that the international community
has failed to address in a timely manner.
Why is it that certain predicaments generate intense
mobilization of ways and means, but not others? Why
does human suffering in some parts of the globe fuel
greater indignation than when it takes place elsewhere?
The plight of Angola and that of East Timor offer two
glaring examples of what amounts to a clear pattern of
one-sided and unequal attention.
In Angola, UNITA’s refusal to abide by the Lusaka
Protocol and hardened positions threaten to rekindle in all
its intensity the same civil war that over a quarter of a
century has caused incalculable suffering to millions in
that country, particularly the defenceless and the deprived.
In Angola, which has special bonds with Brazil, the
international community is squarely faced — despite the
limited international press coverage — with an immense
political challenge and a humanitarian disaster of
shocking proportions. Urgent and priority action is called
for. The Security Council can no longer allow its
resolutions to be blatantly ignored, as has been the case.
No less urgent — and in this case the United
Nations is now actively engaged — is the task of helping
guarantee the right of the East Timorese people to decide
their own future as an independent nation, a decision
unmistakably voiced in a free ballot. Brazilian society,
which shares linguistic, cultural and historic ties with the
Timorese, joined in their rejoicing when the vote returned
a resounding verdict for independence. There was
consternation in Brazil at the violence against our brothers
in East Timor and at the loss of innocent lives that
followed.
Brazil cannot accept, nor can Brazilian citizens
understand, that the self-determination of the Timorese
people is not fully assured. We therefore believe that the
multinational force authorized by the Security Council —
a force in which Brazil was determined to participate
from the very outset — will put a stop to the atrocities
committed since the popular ballot and will be able to
re-establish the necessary conditions for a peaceful
transition to independence.
Over the past decade, Latin America, long viewed as
a land of backwardness and dictatorships, has fashioned
a new international image for itself through the
transformations it has undergone. The return to
democracy in our countries has had a decisive role in this,
as did our important achievements in fostering respect for
human rights — although much remains to be done. The
adoption of consistent economic policies, in turn, has
5

made it possible to overcome the endless dilemmas that had
ensnared us, and to put an end to the inflationary spiral that
had brought so much uncertainty and injustice to our
citizens.
Let there be no doubt that the difficulties that we
experienced, on and off, throughout 1999 will not cause us
to lose faith and relinquish our achievements. For a few
days, or maybe weeks, at the beginning of the year, Brazil
was dubbed by some “the sick man of Latin America”. It
was thought that we might slip back into the trap of high
inflation, that we would experience deep recession, that we
would once again resort to the panacea of stoking short-
term growth and return to the old boom-and-bust cycles of
the past.
Yet we have arrived at the end of the century with an
inflation rate under 8 per cent. We fully expect to embark
on a course of sustained annual growth of more than 4 per
cent and are set to bring to completion a large-scale
modernization programme by means of important reforms
in tax, fiscal and social security matters. President Fernando
Henrique Cardoso will not flinch in his determination to lay
the groundwork for our country to become modern,
economically fit and dynamic, as well as socially more just
and politically mature.
With the advent of democracy, Brazil and Argentina
have developed the solid friendship that binds our peoples,
and have over a short space of time built a lasting
monument to integration. Our bilateral agreements in the
field of nuclear cooperation are exemplary and a stabilizing
force in the region and worldwide. The Southern Cone
Common Market (MERCOSUR) — which our two
countries joined Paraguay and Uruguay in establishing and
with which the democracies of Bolivia and Chile have
associated themselves — has fundamentally altered the
economic face of the hemisphere and indeed of the world.
Our integration process is not directed against anyone, but,
on the contrary, seeks to strengthen our historical ties both
within and beyond the Americas. Both individually and
within the framework of MERCOSUR our countries have
become a powerful force in the drive to set the international
trade system on a more open, balanced course, one that no
longer aids and abets protectionist privileges at the expense,
more often than not, of developing countries.
Democracy has made it possible for the countries of
Latin America to provide mutual assistance — without
undue and unsolicited foreign interference and in a spirit of
collaboration — whenever there is a jointly perceived threat
to the institutional stability of one of them. Thanks to
democracy, the countries of our region have successfully
solved disputes that for long disturbed the harmony of the
more peaceful and stable of continents. At the end of last
year, Ecuador and Peru, with the diplomatic support of
Brazil, Argentina, Chile and the United States, signed in
Brasilia the agreements that put an end to their long-
running boundary dispute. Thus, despite all manner of
difficulties, Latin America is transforming itself into a
tightly knit entity that is politically, economically and
socially integrated.
It is in this spirit of integration, and in the abiding
awareness that we belong to one family, that Brazil feels
closely attuned to the various efforts at renewal under
way in the region. The elections scheduled for next
October in Argentina will no doubt confirm the political
vitality of this great neighbour of ours and guarantee the
necessary economic conditions for stability and
reinvigorated growth. These same favourable expectations,
we are sure, will be fulfilled at the elections to be held in
Chile and in Uruguay this year, and in Mexico next year.
Their outcome will most certainly underline the
democratic character of Latin America.
The political and economic achievements of Bolivia
since the 1980s in overcoming obstacles that 20 years ago
seemed insurmountable are a further indication of how
much our region has changed for the better. Peru as well
has gained international recognition through its
resounding successes in reversing the adverse economic
trends of past decades and in the war against terrorism
and drug trafficking. This capacity to overcome obstacles
is equally noticeable in Ecuador, where, with the support
of international financial institutions, political forces
will — through democratic and constitutional channels —
undertake the needed reforms to overcome the present
crisis. Paraguay, in turn, successfully dealt with a delicate
political crisis at the beginning of this year and is moving
steadily along the road of democratic institution-building
and economic development. Brazil, as always, will
continue to decisively support Paraguay in that endeavour.
Guyana provides a further demonstration, not only
of our commitment to upholding and fostering democratic
values, but equally of the integrationist spirit that inspires
us. It is our hope that Suriname will join in the efforts
and achievements of the region in bringing about these
positive changes. The transformations that Venezuela is
undergoing have drawn great international attention. This
process of change must be respected, for it clearly and
legitimately reflects the Venezuelan people’s desire for
renewal. The expression of this aspiration through
6

institutional channels is the best guarantee that the changes
under way will stay on the track of respect for the norms,
rights and duties that define democracy.
Brazil is also confident that the Government of
President Andrés Pastrana, in Colombia, will persevere in
its endeavours to bring peace to this kindred nation. Undue
foreign interference would only aggravate an already
complex situation, which it is up to the Colombians
themselves to overcome.
It is on the success of our neighbours, in which we
trust, that hinges the success of the Brazilian people and its
Government in solving their own problems and in
overcoming their own challenges, which are neither few nor
small.
Organized crime and drug trafficking today pose a
major challenge to democratic societies. They clearly
represent a serious threat to the security of national
institutions and to citizens directly, who pay with their own
lives the intolerable price for this scourge of our times. The
spiralling stockpile of and trade in small arms is closely
linked to organized crime and drug trafficking. As its
citizens find their lives daily at risk because of contraband
firearms, Brazil gives the utmost priority to tackling this
question. At the regional level we approved the important
Inter-American Convention on Transparency in
Conventional Weapons Acquisitions. We would like this
Assembly to endorse the proposal to hold an international
conference on illicit arms trafficking in all its aspects.
Similarly, Brazil attaches considerable importance to the
work being done on a draft convention against transnational
organized crime.
In turn, the continued existence of weapons of mass
destruction remains a threat to the security and even the
survival of humankind.
All actions contrary to the aims of the
non-proliferation regime should be firmly condemned by
the international community. At the same time, it behooves
the nuclear-armed States, as well as the threshold States, to
move towards the complete and irreversible elimination of
nuclear armaments. For this reason, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden will once
again submit, at this session, a draft resolution on a new
agenda for nuclear disarmament. The draft resolution,
which seeks to pave the way for a constructive dialogue on
this issue, is grounded on a realistic and balanced appraisal
of the nature of the nuclear disarmament process.
Our countries’ democratic institutions and the
international organizations, particularly the United
Nations, face fundamental challenges today. Our countries
are confronted daily with economic difficulties and acute
social grievances, such as poverty and extremes of
inequality, which heighten impatience: impatience with
economies unable to grow at a rate compatible with faster
improvement of the well-being of societies; impatience in
the face of vulnerability to crises and to turbulence in
international markets; and impatience with political
processes that sometimes appear slow to respond to the
legitimate and pressing demands of citizens. It is vital,
however, that this collective impatience be voiced and
guided through democratic channels.
Brazil’s commitment to democratic institutions and
to the primacy of law also applies to international
relations. At the outset of his second term of office, to
which he was elected last October by an absolute majority
of Brazilian voters, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso
made it clear that:
“The rule of law is the only admissible
foundation for the international order. Should
unilateralism and the use of force come to be
accepted as organizing principles of international
relations, in the long term it will be more rational to
side with the instruments of power politics rather
than to strive for order and to abide by law. If we
are to see a truly new world order emerge, one of its
cornerstones must be the acceptance that multilateral
institutions — not least the Security Council — are
the source of legality and legitimacy for those
actions that guarantee peace and the peaceful
resolution of disputes”.
Our societies await, again with increasing
impatience, seeing multilateral organizations, and in
particular the United Nations, show themselves to be up
to the challenge of playing a meaningful — in fact,
crucial — role in establishing an international order
attuned to the shared aspirations and values of humankind
as a whole.
The road ahead calls for renewal and change. If the
Governments of the world desire a strong and effective
United Nations, they must not only change how they
think and act with respect to this Organization, but they
must also think and act to bring about change in the
Organization. This is what is at stake. This is the
challenge before us.