On behalf of my
delegation, I offer Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab my sincere
congratulations on his election as President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. I also pay a tribute to
his predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti, under whose leadership
the Assembly succeeded in achieving positive results at its
fifty-third session.
I have every expectation that this, the final session of
the Assembly of the twentieth century, will be as fruitful.
The rich experience and leadership Mr. Gurirab brings to
the presidency ensure the session's success. I assure him of
our full cooperation and support in his noble endeavours.
I warmly congratulate the three new Members, the
Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the
Kingdom of Tonga, on their admission to the United
Nations.
The new millennium is about to dawn, and we will
enter it with great hope for the new age, but also burdened
by numerous problems left unresolved from the passing
century. To realize the hope and mould the twenty-first
century into an era of global peace and stability, of
well-being and prosperity for all humankind, we must face
up to these problems, decide what our priority goals are and
seek measures to achieve them. So that the fifty-fourth
session may illuminate the way, let us gather the best of
our collective wisdom.
The defining character of our times is change and
the acceleration of change. The guiding precept of the
global actors is shifting from nationalism to
internationalism, and further to globalism. The whole
world is converging around shared values and behaviour
patterns. In economic affairs, the market economy is
becoming the global norm. In political matters,
reconciliation and cooperation have become the expected
mode of behaviour. The world is becoming a global
village of countries willing and eager to live with one
another in interdependence and integration.
A conspicuous exception to the tide of the times is
the Korean peninsula, where the confrontational structure
of the cold-war era still keeps the two divided sides in
mutual distrust and hostility. Decades have passed since
the end of the Korean war, but genuine peace has yet to
come to the Korean people. Despite the warm wind of
reconciliation blowing around the world, the Korean
peninsula has remained frozen in an icy time warp.
The Republic of Korea aspires to melt away the ice
and reconcile with the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea. It aspires to free the Korean peninsula from the
final legacy of the cold war and allow it to take its
rightful place in the grand march of history towards the
new era. To realize this aspiration, the engagement policy
of the Government of President Kim Dae-jung has been
sending warm winds of sunshine to the North, in hopes
that it will respond in kind. Inspired by the lessons of
history and the trend of the times, this sunshine policy
represents a bold shift in our thinking about South-North
relations.
Our engagement policy is not aimed at undermining
or absorbing the North. Instead, it is a policy of
cooperation, designed to help North Korea overcome its
economic difficulties and promote the co-prosperity of all
Koreans, so that we may finally be free from the threat of
another war. It is a policy of tolerance, envisioning the
peaceful coexistence of two systems along the road to
eventual unification.
The steady and consistent implementation of the
engagement policy during the past year and a half has
made meaningful and unprecedented openings in the thick
wall that divides South and North Korea. South Korean
businesses are investing in the North. In one such venture,
over 100,000 South Korean tourists were able to visit a
scenic mountain in the North for the first time since the
national division.
19

Economic cooperation is also an important element in
the work of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development
Organization, a joint endeavour of the Republic of Korea,
the United States, Japan, the European Union and many
other countries to help resolve North Korea's energy-
shortage problem while keeping it free of nuclear weapons.
The engagement policy is being carried out in close
consultation with the United States and Japan. It also has
the full support of our neighbours in North-East Asia —
China, the Russian Federation and Mongolia — as well as
the G-7, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, the
European Union and other members of the international
community. South Korea is deeply grateful for their
understanding and support.
Still North Korea remains suspicious of our intentions.
It may perceive the engagement policy as a strategy to
bring about its downfall or to absorb it. Speaking in this
solemn Hall, I must reiterate the genuine, good-hearted
intentions of the engagement policy. The Republic of Korea
has no wish to undermine North Korea or to make it a part
of us. All we seek is peaceful coexistence.
I make this appeal. Let us, South and North Korea,
live in lasting peace. Let us together join the mainstream of
history: reconciliation, cooperation and interdependence. I
sincerely hope that North Korea responds to the warm
sunshine we have been sending it with some warm sunshine
of its own.
I also hope that the North Korean authorities will take
steps to fundamentally address the chronic food shortage
and other difficulties that have plagued the people in the
North for many years. The problems require the continued
interest and assistance of the international community.
Countless children in the North are suffering and dying
from starvation and malnutrition, stunted growth and
disease. With their right to food and life irrevocably
impaired, tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled the
country in search of food.
The primary responsibility for redressing the situation
lies with the North Korean authorities. They must face up
to the enormity of the problems. We also hope that the
international community will provide continued
humanitarian assistance to North Korea.
The Government of the Republic of Korea has actively
taken part in the humanitarian efforts to help the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We are prepared to
offer far more in terms of food and fertilizer, as well as
assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's
agricultural restructuring. We urge the North Korean
authorities to join us in dialogue for cooperation on this
and other matters.
North-East Asia, where the interests of the major
Powers intersect, is an economic powerhouse and a region
vital to global peace and stability. With the market
economy taking root throughout the region, a new age of
stability, cooperation and mutual prosperity is sprouting
in North-East Asia. The countries of the region are
becoming bound ever closer together in economic ties and
interdependencies. Unhampered exchanges and
cooperation are expanding far beyond the trade in goods
and services to people-to-people contacts and other
interactions in the fields of culture, sports, education and
many others. Mutual understanding and appreciation is
deepening.
To further the trend, North-East Asia requires
adequate mechanisms to deal with transnational issues,
such as environmental pollution, drug-trafficking,
refugees, organized crime and public health. There is also
a need for a region-wide channel of dialogue and
cooperation to defuse tension and prevent conflict.
To enjoy a stable security environment and co-
prosperity in the twenty-first century, the countries of
North-East Asia must learn from the lessons of
region-wide cooperation and integration in many other
areas of the world. They must strengthen mutual trust by
upgrading the mode and calibre of their dialogue and
consultations. They should promptly set out to establish
a dialogue forum where they can all engage in earnest
exchanges of views and nurture the sense of community.
The Republic of Korea stands ready to cooperate
closely with the other countries of the region to launch
such a mechanism for dialogue and cooperation
encompassing all of North-East Asia. I urge the countries
of the region to join in the efforts to translate this idea
into reality.
Peace and co-prosperity in North-East Asia will
certainly gain from the global disarmament and
non-proliferation efforts, in which the Republic of Korea
has been an active participant. With the ratification of the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), my
country is now a party to all the key non-proliferation
treaties. We call upon other countries that have yet to sign
and ratify the CTBT to promptly do so, so that the Treaty
can soon go into effect. We call upon all States to join in
the non-proliferation efforts by acceding to all global
20

regimes, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, aimed
at combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
A priority task for the global community will be to
successfully carry out the review Conference of the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) slated
for next year and to revitalize the Conference on
Disarmament. I urge the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, as a party to the NPT, to fulfil its responsibilities
under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
safeguards agreement and to cooperate with us to
implement the 1991 Joint Declaration on the
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
We are living in a single global community.
Globalization has been good to the Republic of Korea.
Without the open markets, interdependencies and instant
information flow nurtured by globalization, we would not
have been able to achieve the rapid economic development
that we did. However, stuck in the expediencies fostered
during the years of Government-driven quantitative growth,
Korea neglected to strengthen the market rules in the
national economy. We failed to realize that globalization
requires constant efforts to reinforce the market rules —
transparency, accountability, efficiency and productivity. As
a result, Korea was struck by a severe economic crisis in
1997.
But now we are trying to make up for past neglect.
During the past year and a half, we have been undertaking
sweeping and intense reforms in the key sectors of society.
The reforms have required painful restructuring and
sacrifices, but we have been steady and firm in putting into
practice the belief that trade and investment liberalization
and the strengthening of market rules are the keys to
sustained economic growth and prosperity.
A year ago, from this same rostrum, I spoke about the
efforts of my Government and people to overcome the
crisis, guided by the conviction in the parallel development
of democracy and the free-market economy. Today, I am
happy to report that the efforts have begun to pay off and
the country is expected to achieve over 6 per cent economic
growth this year, a dramatic turnaround from the -5.8
percent of last year. Other economic indicators also speak
of a stable, recovering economy.
Korea has learned valuable lessons from the economic
crisis. We are now keenly aware that free and fair
competition and good governance are essential to
sustainable economic development. We also realized that a
system of social welfare based on human-resources
development must be established to mitigate the painful
consequences of the reforms. Applying those lessons in
the reform drive, we are on our way to becoming a
market economy with a human face.
Of course, in a globalized economy, crisis knows no
borders and the efforts at preventing and coping with
crisis must also extend beyond borders. In this regard, we
welcome the discussions concerning the restructuring of
the global financial architecture. For the discussions to be
productive, the crisis-stricken countries and other
emerging market economies should have extensive
participation. Keeping track of the discussions for
meaningful progress, we count on the continued
cooperation between the United Nations and the Bretton
Woods systems.
One consequence of globalization has been the
widening gap between the developed and the developing
countries and the increasing marginalization of the least
developed ones. Unattended, the disparity will only grow
in the twenty-first century of unlimited competition,
becoming a risk factor that could endanger global stability
and peace. There is a pressing need for a new paradigm
of international development cooperation, whereby the
chronic poverty and excessive debts besetting the
developing countries and other related issues are taken as
challenges to be overcome with the active input of all
members of the global community.
Development is meaningless without a healthy
population to reap the fruits. Thus, we welcome the joint
initiative of the United Nations Children's Fund and the
World Health Organization to establish the Global
Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization and the
Children's Vaccine Initiative. Doing its share in the efforts
to save the 9 million children of the world who are dying
every year from diseases that can be prevented, the
Republic of Korea has hosted the International Vaccine
Institute since 1994. We hope the Institute will be able to
work in close cooperation with the Global Alliance and
the Vaccine Initiative.
In the half century since the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, the United
Nations has taken the lead in forging global mechanisms
for the protection and advancement of human rights
around the world. The principles of universality,
indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights are
now widely upheld. Human rights violations, wherever
they may take place, are now considered a legitimate
concern of the international community. Human rights has
21

become a priority agenda of the post-cold-war global
community. In the Republic of Korea, the Government of
President Kim Dae Jung has made significant advances in
the field of human rights. We have also been an active
participant in the efforts of the United Nations and the
global community to resolve concrete cases of human rights
violations.
While we note the advances in human rights, we must
not forget that a quarter of the world's population still
struggles to survive in abject poverty. Poverty undermines
human dignity and human rights. Poverty is fertile ground
for conflict and dictatorship. Poverty alleviation should be
incorporated as a key goal in the United Nations
endeavours to advance human rights around the world. We
wish to see the mainstreaming of human rights in all the
programmes and activities of the United Nations further
expanded and deepened. Furthermore, we believe this
global body should strengthen its capacity for early warning
and preventive action so as to forestall massive human
rights violations and the outflow of refugees.
The task of advancing human rights has always
benefited from the push and pull of civil society. It will be
even more so in the new century as Governments and the
United Nations work in closer alliance and cooperation with
non-governmental organizations, research organizations and
advocacy groups. Next month, some 3,000 non-
governmental organization representatives will gather in
Seoul to take part in the 1999 international conference of
non-governmental organizations. Exploring the role of the
non-governmental organizations in the twenty-first century
global community, the meeting from October 11 to 15
should bring the United Nations system and civil society
closer together.
Let us turn our attention to the situation in East Timor.
The Republic of Korea applauded the Government of
Indonesia for making the decision to let the people of East
Timor choose their own fate. The will of the people, as
unequivocally registered on 30 August, must be upheld. The
violent repression of that will is a grave challenge to the
basic principle of democracy and human decency. The
atrocity must not be left unpunished and law and order
must be restored in East Timor. The Indonesian
Government has again shown wisdom and courage in
accepting the multinational peacekeeping forces under the
auspices of the United Nations. We hope that peace is soon
returned and that the will of the people for independence is
fully implemented through the conjoined efforts of the
Indonesian Government and the United Nations. The
Republic of Korea will take part in the peacekeeping
operations and will continue to do its share in the efforts
to safeguard regional and global peace and stability.
The United Nations has much work to do in the
twenty-first century. The Republic of Korea deeply
appreciates the reforms introduced by the
Secretary-General to enhance the responsiveness of the
global body to new challenges. We welcome the
designation of the fifty-fifth session next year as the
Millennium Assembly to identify the challenges awaiting
the global community in the twenty-first century. We
hope the Millennium Assembly strengthens the global
leadership of the United Nations for the new age.
In this regard, such thought-provoking concepts as
global public goods, human security and global
governance may serve to frame the discussions at the
Millennium Assembly.
I look to the twenty-first century as the era of the
United Nations. I sincerely hope to see the global body
renew itself and fulfil its missions through continuous
reforms and to enhance its effectiveness and democratic
character. Recalling the lofty spirit that gave birth to the
United Nations half a century ago, on behalf of the
Government and people of the Republic of Korea, I
pledge our abiding support for the global body in its
noble mission for peace and prosperity around the world.


First let convey my
warmest congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your
election. As we enter the new millennium, the United
Nations is crossing a significant threshold, and we need
a seasoned hand to lead us. Your long experience with the
23

United Nations, first as a freedom fighter, now as Foreign
Minister of Namibia, will stand us in good stead.
Let me also thank your distinguished predecessor,
Mr. Didier Opertti of Uruguay, for the good work he did
last year.
As a fellow small State, Singapore would also like to
warmly welcome the three new Members to the United
Nations: Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga. We hope that they will
also join the forum of small States.
I wish to pose this question: Will the United Nations
survive in the twenty-first century? I have framed this
question provocatively because I believe that the United
Nations has not yet adequately come to grips with the
central challenges of its next phase of development. Unless
it does so, my question may not be just rhetorical.
To be sure, the United Nations has been seized of
efforts at reform for several years. But what is required
must go beyond the modification of existing institutions or
organizational structures. The issue is not just how to make
the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretariat
or other organs work more effectively, although that is
important. But we cannot succeed if we neglect the broader
context of such endeavours. The key question is whether
the current United Nations is conceptually and
constitutionally sound.
The simple but hard-won lesson of this century's
experiments with international organizations, from the
League to the United Nations, is that the United Nations
must work within the framework of the state system. If the
United Nations has worked better or has lasted longer than
the League, it is because the United Nations has
accommodated the state system rather than posed a direct
threat to it. Its Member States see the United Nations as an
additional protective umbrella, not as a body that
diminishes them.
The League's Covenant was based on different
premises. It emphasized disarmament. It promoted
collective security. It required States to submit disputes to
arbitration and judicial settlement. By doing so, the League
posed an explicit challenge to the rights of States. On the
other hand, the United Nations can do nothing that its
Members do not expressly allow it to do. Our Charter is
clear and explicit that the United Nations is based on the
principle of the sovereign equality of its Members. It also
stresses the concomitant principle of non-interference in
internal affairs.
But these premises are now under pressure. As the
twentieth century draws to a close, the state system is on
the verge of major transformation. This will profoundly
affect all Members and the United Nations itself.
I do not predict the end of the nation State. The
concept of sovereignty is undergoing profound
modification, but it does not seem likely that the nation
State will simply disappear. No viable alternative to
organizing international political life has yet emerged, no
matter how inadequate or ineffective the current form
may have become. Radical proposals for restructuring the
framework of the state system will inevitably invite
disappointment. The United Nations must therefore work
within the existing framework, even as that framework is
being transformed. Herein lie the subtlety and the
difficulty of the new challenge.
Two forces are impelling change: the pressures of a
truly integrated world economy and the end of the cold
war. Neither is adequately understood; even less
understood is their interplay. This dialectic simultaneously
impels an unprecedented degree of international
cooperation and makes international cooperation more
difficult to achieve.
There have always been issues which required States
to work together. Interdependence is not new. In a sense,
it is as old as the state system. To be sure, the number
and scope of transnational issues that require international
cooperative action have now expanded, but this is a
change of degree, not of kind. Globalization is not just
more interdependence.
While globalization's effects are most evident in
finance and economics, there are far-reaching implications
across a range of issues. It affects the very notion of
statehood and government as they have hitherto been
understood.
The essential function of any Government is to
govern — to provide public goods and services to its
citizens within its borders. But in a globalized economy,
national borders no longer include sufficient territory to
function as self-contained economic units. Financial
geography and economic geography no longer coincide
with political geography. This mismatch means that
Governments no longer have a monopoly of legitimate
24

power within their own state boundaries. This does not
challenge the de jure sovereignty of States, but profoundly
alters every Government's de facto capacity to govern.
The challenge is not, as it was throughout history,
merely of one State circumscribing the sovereignty of
another — of the powerful forcing their will on the weak.
The real challenge is now within each State, no matter how
powerful.
Dealing with this phenomenon poses a different kind
of challenge than just insisting on the legal concept of
sovereignty or persuading Governments to work together on
specific issues. It forces a reconceptualization of the very
idea of government and statehood. It requires a complete
change of mindset by the powerful as well as by the weak.
This will be difficult and painful to achieve.
What is required is an unprecedented and qualitatively
new kind of international cooperation, not just cooperation
based on the alignment of national interests, as has occurred
throughout history. It requires the redefinition of what
constitutes both “nation” and “interests”. States can no
longer just collide or cooperate at the boundaries of their
sovereignties. It demands nothing less than shared
responsibility for governance and a pooling of
sovereignties.
For this new kind of international cooperation to be
constructed and take root, the imperative of cooperation
must be supported by practical experience that demonstrates
that it is superior to any other political alternative. It is here
that the intersection and interplay of globalization and the
post-cold-war international order complicate matters.
The end of the cold war at first seemed to promise a
new dawn for the United Nations, opening up vast
potentialities for international cooperation unfettered by
ideological conflict. But these hopes have now been dashed.
In reality, the end of the cold war may have made
international cooperation less likely.
Paradoxically, the ever-greater integration of the world
economy has been accompanied by increasing political
fragmentation. The cold war was not just an ideological
geopolitical struggle; the cold war imposed identities that
transcended nationalism. Even those who sought to escape
the cold war in fact defined themselves in relation to it.
Irrespective of which side we stood for, the cold war was
the organizing principle for international action and the
concept by which we understood global events.
To those disoriented by the pressures of
globalization, the end of the cold war provided an
opportunity to seek reassurance and a new identity in real
or imagined ethnic nationalisms. The resulting
proliferation of States and the lack of a clear organizing
principle for international action have made cooperation
problematic.
The end of ideological conflict and the increasing
influence of market principles in all areas of life are
making economic efficiency an essential condition for
evaluating political actions. But globalization has
simultaneously eroded the ability of States to muster the
political consensus of their own citizens for such action.
It is therefore not very surprising that the right kind of
new response has not yet been forthcoming.
Of course, lip service is being paid to the need for
new international institutions to deal with new
transnational problems or to the reform of existing
international institutions, the United Nations among them.
But the more usual reaction to the mismatch between
economic geography and the political geography of state
boundaries has been defensive or a sterile triumphalism:
a new protectionism, xenophobic or nostalgic nationalisms
or, where a country feels strong and confident enough, a
new kind of extraterritoriality, reminiscent of the
nineteenth century. Strong States try to project their
national laws beyond their boundaries or insist on their
standards as conditionalities for trade and other kinds of
cooperative interactions.
The recognition that problems are global, and the
almost universal acceptance of the market, commands at
best only superficial international consensus. The real
responses, the most concrete and practical responses, have
been regional rather than universal.
This process is most advanced in Europe and North
America, through the European Union and the North
American Free Trade Agreement, and less so in Latin
America and Asia, through the Southern Cone Common
Market, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Council
and the Association of South-East Asian Nations Free
Trade Area. Tentative linkages are being explored
between regions. Africa has been only peripherally
engaged. But relying on regionalism as more than a
stopgap in a globalized world creates a latent instability.
If projected unchecked into the twenty-first century, this
must ultimately affect basic issues of war and peace. It is
obviously unacceptable for an entire continent to be
marginalized.
25

So a truly universal approach to shared responsibility
for global governance and pooling of sovereignties to deal
with global problems requires an international consensus on
what is legitimately in the general interest of still sovereign
States. No matter how compelling the issue or problem, this
is not self-evident.
The definition of what is in the legitimate public
interest within a specific State or nation is the product of a
long historical process, cultural attributes and a level of
economic development. It is the basic stuff of most political
contests in most States. Consensus is not easy to reach
domestically. It certainly will be even more difficult in an
international system that is concurrently united and divided
by globalization and the end of the cold war.
The international problem is compounded because the
expectation that the post-cold-war international system
would be multipolar has proved premature. A multipolar
world is still more a matter of potential rather than a
current reality. This has engendered discomfort.
The war in Kosovo focused such feelings. It threw
into brutal relief a trend that has been under way for some
time: that the absolute sovereignty of States has to be
qualified to require compliance with generally accepted
standards of conduct and respect for human rights.
This is not all that novel a notion. The traditional
approach of non-interference in domestic affairs was never
as absolute in practice as in theory. The doctrine of
humanitarian intervention dates from the nineteenth century,
when the powerful claimed the right to intervene in the
affairs of the weak. The war in Kosovo resonated with such
historical memories, thus adding to the discomfort.
It is a fact that sovereignty now coexists uneasily with
a different current of international law concerned with the
rights of individuals. These trends have not yet been
reconciled. But both trends are facts that cannot be wished
away. In any case, their logical compatibility is not the real
issue.
Notwithstanding Kosovo, it does not appear that the
majority of States have much to fear if they treat their
citizens well. There are many countries that treat their
citizens badly without any suggestion of any sanction
harsher than moral disapproval. Concern for human rights
has always been selective.
The more critical issue is related but different. The
loss of territorial reference points engendered by
globalization's mismatch between economic and political
geographies and the loss of strategic meaning after the
end of the cold war have made most international
reactions ad hoc.
We lurch from crisis to crisis, with no clear sense of
direction or consistency. Why Kosovo or East Timor and
not Africa? Are the rights of humans everywhere not
universal? How to choose when to intervene among the
all-too-many conflicts? In his statement to the General
Assembly this year, the Secretary-General has posed
several thoughtful challenges for us: “Nothing in the
Charter precludes a recognition that there are rights
beyond borders.” What the Charter does say is that armed
force shall not be used, save in the common interest. The
Secretary-General then asked, what is the common
interest? Who shall define it? Who will defend it? Under
whose authority? With what means of intervention?
I agree with the Secretary-General that these
questions will need to be answered and criteria
established. Rules and objective criteria for such
interventions are urgently needed. Failure to do so will
breed uncertainty and instability. If a new balance has to
be struck between sovereignty and other values, it should
be struck knowingly and with our eyes open. The
alternative is to be led, one step at a time, with the best
of intentions, by ad hoc solutions.
This will be a major challenge for the international
community if the United Nations is to remain relevant in
the coming century. This is because we can expect to face
many more situations which will pose the dilemma of
reconciling State sovereignty with international
intervention to redress violations of human rights.
We are all familiar with the pressures of the
international media and non-governmental actors. These
are realities but provide no satisfactory answers. It is not
politically acceptable that questions of international peace
and stability should be decided on an ad hoc basis. It is
even less acceptable that consensus on the need for more
peaceful modes of international cooperation should reflect
the preoccupations of a few.
What we need is to replicate on a global scale those
conditions that have made the pluralistic societies in
advanced economies still capable of collective action. No
Government anywhere can rule by coercion alone or lead
legitimately merely because it wields supreme power.
Resort to coercion or naked power is more often than not
taken to be a symptom of failure of government and not
its defining feature.
26

What is required, therefore, on the international stage
is what has already been accepted domestically — indeed,
insisted upon in the name of democracy: a modest
acceptance of the reality of diversity and a nuanced
appreciation of the difference between friends, friendly
critics and honest disagreements. Persuading those already
disoriented by globalization and rapid technological changes
requires patient and skilful diplomacy in the artful balance
of competing interests.
Despite the handicaps under which it laboured, and for
all its imperfections, the United Nations has played a
critical role in some of the great world issues of the first
four decades of its existence. It eased the pangs of
decolonization. It provided a cathartic theatre to vent the
most dangerous passions of the cold war. It provided the
means for the super-Powers to back down from unwanted
confrontations without grievous political costs to either.
From time to time, it scored notable successes in
peacekeeping operations around the world. At the same
time, the United Nations, through its specialized agencies,
continues to play a vital developmental role for the majority
of its Members.
But the United Nations experiences of the last decade
have been less happy. The United Nations has played at
best only a very marginal role in the great developments of
the closing years of the twentieth century that I have tried
to describe. It risks becoming increasingly divorced from
the very international realities in which it is inescapably
embedded.
Like all organizations of sovereign States, the United
Nations can only provide a mechanism for its Members to
use for whatever purpose their agreements or disagreements
dictate. But the United Nations cannot be just a tool of the
few, a repository for issues that no country is willing or
knows how to confront, or a convenient scapegoat. The
hard fact is that these are the roles that the United Nations
has been forced to play in recent years. It cannot continue
on this path without permanent damage.
In our century, the trend towards international
organization, towards the development of a more
predictable pattern of relationships between States and
international regimes that transcend individual sovereignties
is, I believe, established. There is no going back. Whether
we like it or not, the world has become too complex to be
dealt with except multilaterally.
But this does not mean that any particular international
institution will necessarily play an effective role in the
organization of international life in the next century. The
United Nations cannot assume that it will survive intact,
just by clinging on to structures and processes conceived
in 1945. The world has changed dramatically since then.
It will continue to do so. The United Nations has no
choice but to change in tandem.
This imperative is clear. What is unclear is how the
United Nations should change. That is why I have posed
more questions than I have provided answers. The process
of discussion must start now. The mechanism is at our
disposal. The responsibility to use it is ours. Whether we
will engage ourselves in this responsibility quickly
enough to make a difference to the United Nations is for
us to choose. I do not know how much time we have. I
only know that the time left is finite.


On behalf of my Government
and on my own behalf, I wish to join previous speakers in
congratulating you, Sir, most sincerely on your election as
President of the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth
session. Your election to this high office is a matter of
honour to all Africans and to the United Nations family, for
you represent a nation whose plight remained on the agenda
of this Organization for many years. The attainment of the
independence of Namibia, the last stronghold of colonialism
in the African continent, and the subsequent political,
economic and social developments that have occurred in the
last few years, have indeed paved the way for the
consolidation of the process of political integration of
southern Africa. We wish you well in your new
responsibilities, and are confident that this body will be
well served in the months ahead. We shall cooperate with
you in every way we can.
A well-deserved tribute is also due to your
predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Didier Opertti of
Uruguay, for the exemplary manner in which he
spearheaded the proceedings of the Organization during
the last session.
I would also like to express my high regard to the
Secretary-General for his continued commitment to
international peace and security and for his leadership in
dealing with an ever-increasing array of challenges
worldwide. I wish to encourage him to continue on this
positive path.
My Government welcomes the recent admission to
the membership of the United Nations of the Republic of
Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of
Tonga. We are certain that the new Members will further
enhance the universal nature of our Organization.
I have come to the General Assembly first as a
messenger of a people — the Mozambican people — who
have embarked on a long process of political, economic
and social stabilization, following years of instability. The
process of consolidating Mozambique’s young, multiparty
democracy is making steady progress. Step by step, our
country is returning to normalcy, though we are conscious
of the hurdles still ahead.

We are currently preparing for the second multiparty
presidential and parliamentary elections, to be held on 3
and 4 December 1999. Periodic genuine elections constitute
an important political exercise, which my Government and
I are committed to pursuing vigorously with a view to
ensuring lasting peace and stability in Mozambique.
In the past five years of pluralistic democracy we have
registered important advances in the consolidation of
nation-building through collective efforts involving all
layers of society. Taking advantage of its diversity and
vitality, our Parliament has held fruitful discussion, which
resulted in the adoption of new laws that are contributing
positively to the revitalization of political, economic and
social institutions as well as to the consolidation of peace
and democracy.
More important, this forum has contributed to the
creation among parliamentarians of a new vision and
understanding of the facts about our country and a vision of
a united nation pursuing peace, progress and prosperity for
all Mozambicans, thus consolidating national reconciliation.
The period under review has equally witnessed significant
economic and social progress. We are proud that this has
been highlighted and commended by well-advised outside
observers and by many of the most respected organizations
and institutions as a good example of commitment to
implement economic reforms.
The Mozambican economy has grown at encouraging
rates, resulting in the allocation of an increased share of the
national budget to the social sectors. The whole network of
schools and health facilities destroyed during the years of
destabilization has been rebuilt, and most roads and bridges
are under rehabilitation.
My Government has succeeded in creating a more
enabling environment for private investment by redefining
its role as facilitator. We have identified and established
special incentive schemes in various areas with higher
potential for development. These incentives are aimed at
bringing new investments to a number of areas in order to
develop internationally competitive economic zones, create
employment opportunities and promote sustainable
economic growth. They are also intended to bring about
balanced development of the whole country, bearing in
mind that some areas were neglected during colonial times.
The streamlining of investment procedures, coupled
with political stability, has contributed to the attraction of
large investments such as the Maputo Development
Corridor project. The concept of development corridors is
an initiative regarded as the cornerstone of the regional
integration strategy involving the countries of the
Southern African Development Community (SADC).
Other transfrontier and national programmes in
partnership with other countries of the region play a
major role in this process. These include strategic projects
such as the $1.3-billion Mozal aluminium smelter plant to
be completed within one year and the projected $2-billion
Maputo iron and steel plant; both are part of the Maputo
Development Corridor project. The construction of
another $600-million iron and steel plant and the
construction of a new port in Savane are envisaged as
part of the Beira Corridor. Gas projects in the southern
and central regions of Mozambique, as well as sugar
plants and tourism, are other undertakings of great
importance being developed in Mozambique with the
participation of other SADC countries.
The ambitious plan for the development of integrated
programmes and projects in the Zambezi river basin, an
extensive and potentially rich part of Mozambique,
include the construction of a big hydroelectric dam at
M’panda M’kua. The Zambezi valley covers more than
200,000 square kilometres, nearly one third of our
national territory, and is endowed with a variety of
resources of strategic importance, which we intend to
develop in order to bring about sustainable development
for our country and for the SADC region. The Cabora
Bassa dam is already supplying electricity to Zimbabwe
and to South Africa.
Mozambique will thus be in a position to use its
geostrategic location to make a greater contribution
towards the integrated development of the southern
African region; this is one of the building blocks of
continental integration.
We believe that cooperative interaction involving
various segments of society, including the private sector,
is the key to the promotion of sustainable development
through a smart partnership in which all stakeholders will
benefit.
I come to this Assembly also as a messenger of the
peoples of southern Africa, a region striving to develop as
a community of nations and peoples at peace with itself
and with others and working towards balanced and
integrated development. Last month, the people and the
Government of Mozambique were honoured to host the
nineteenth Summit of Heads of State or Government of
our community, the Southern African Development
Community. The Maputo Summit was held on the theme
2

“SADC in the next millennium: working together for peace,
progress and prosperity”. It brought together heads of State
or Government and other high-ranking representatives of all
its 14 member States and, as guests, the heads of State of
Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda, the Secretary-General of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Executive
Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, as well
as other dignitaries representing a variety of other regional
and international organizations.
In reviewing the progress made over the previous 12
months, the Summit noted with satisfaction that the
economies of the Community continued to grow at in
average rate of 3 per cent, thanks to sound macroeconomic
policies implemented by member States and to the
harmonization and coordination of activities towards
economic integration. However, in order to eradicate
poverty, the region needs to grow at an average rate of 6
per cent per year. To achieve this objective we need to
mobilize more regional resources as well as to consolidate
an enabling environment to increase the share of foreign
direct investment. We have once again resolved to commit
ourselves to ensure that all of our countries and peoples can
benefit as they must from the globalization process. To that
end, efforts will continue to be made to consolidate peace
throughout the region, to harmonize sectoral policies and to
implement sound economic policies.
During the Maputo Summit, the heads of State and
Government signed three important documents: on wildlife,
on health and on productivity. They welcomed the recent
entry into force of the SADC Protocols on Shared
Watercourse Systems, on Energy, on Transport,
Communications and Meteorology, and on Combating Illicit
Drug Trafficking, and the charter of the Regional Tourism
Organization of Southern Africa. The entry into force of the
Trade Protocol on 1 January 2000 will bring additional
opportunities and challenges to our region, and will enhance
the programme initiated a few years ago with the entry into
force of other protocols. All these legal instruments are,
indeed, important steps towards regional integration leading
to a better future.
In southern Africa, HIV/AIDS is spreading at an
alarming rate. Governments in the SADC region, aware of
the far-reaching negative consequences, are seeking
collective and individual strategies to counter the spread of
AIDS. In Lusaka, Zambia, we met at a regional level to
look into advisable approaches that can enhance awareness
within each country and to consider measures that can help
Governments to mobilize financial and human resources to
face this global threat. We have no choice: either we stop
the spread of AIDS or we risk putting the viability of our
societies at stake, because in our region the most qualified
people are the ones at high risk.
This scenario foretells our future. Our economic,
social and political development will remain on the
horizon, and the structures of our societies will be
seriously undermined, unless effective, concrete steps are
taken. In this context, my Government very recently
adopted a national strategy against HIV/AIDS.
The resolution on cooperation between SADC and
the United Nations to be adopted this year must reflect
the positive progress that has taken place within SADC,
and stress the importance of greater interaction with the
United Nations in all fields of common interest. At the
same time, our Community — which is built on
democratic principles, equitable and sustainable
development, improved living standards of citizens, free
movement of factors of production, goods and services —
remains equally committed to strengthening its
relationship with other regional organizations.
The search for a durable peace is still a constant
objective of the region. It is for this reason that we
welcome the progress made in the settlement of the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The
signing of the agreement by all parties opens a new era
for the region and beyond. What is required now is for
the international community, particularly the United
Nations, to meet its responsibilities by sending, as
expeditiously as possible, peacekeeping forces with an
appropriate mandate and adequate resources, under
Chapter VII of the Charter, for the achievement of lasting
peace and stability in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
We hope that the progress to which I have referred
to above will make a positive impact on the Angolan
conflict. The people of Angola must be given the
opportunity to live in peace and harmony. The
international community has a moral and political
obligation to assist the Angolans to reverse the
humanitarian tragedy which is unfolding in vast areas of
their territory. At the same time, the international
community, while supporting the Government of Angola
in restoring peace and stability in that country, must call
on Mr. Savimbi to abandon his aggressive and
irresponsible action. In particular, the Security Council
sanctions imposed on UNITA must be fully observed, in
order to prevent further suffering in that SADC country.
In this context, we salute the positive work already done
3

by Ambassador Robert Fowler, Chairman of the Security
Council sanctions committee, and we encourage him to
continue with his work.
This is our vision of the future of Mozambique as an
individual country and also that of SADC as a whole.
The recurrence of conflicts in Africa has exacerbated
the plight of children as the main victims. The recent
Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit, held in
Algiers, echoing the recommendations of the African
Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers, held in
Maputo in April this year, adopted a resolution calling,
inter alia, for the elaboration of an international convention
outlawing the use of children under 18 years of age in
armed conflicts. We urge all members of the United
Nations to adhere to and support this initiative, which, in
our view, must be associated with all other rights of the
child.
We believe that the implementation of that OAU
resolution, together with the concept of “children as zone
of peace” would constitute a valuable contribution to the
protection of children. In this regard, I commend the United
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Special
Representative of the Secretary General on Children and
Armed Conflict and non-governmental organizations for
their relentless efforts to promote and ensure respect for the
rights of the child.
Moreover, the proliferation of small arms and light
weapons, together with transnational crimes such as money
laundering and drug trafficking, constitute major sources of
instability for many countries, including my own. We in
southern Africa are undertaking a coordinated action with
a view to addressing these challenges and bringing about
peace and stability.
In May this year Maputo hosted the First Meeting of
States parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel
Mines and on their Destruction. The Maputo Meeting was
held when thousands of innocent civilians were being
maimed in many parts of the world, including my own
country. The Meeting adopted a Declaration calling upon us
to rededicate ourselves in the struggle against these
insidious weapons, in fulfilment of our obligations under
the Ottawa Convention. More important, the Maputo
Meeting offered a unique opportunity to remind the
international community of the need to meet the targets set
by the Convention. In four years we must destroy all
anti-personnel mines in warehouses, and in ten years we
must complete the demining process in affected countries.
As we concluded in Maputo, these targets are
non-negotiable. What is negotiable is the ways and means
for the attainment of these objectives. We therefore call
upon all States and organizations in a position to do so to
ensure that these goals are met. Failure to reach these
goals would undermine the credibility of the international
community and, above all, the universalization of the
Convention. It is our earnest hope that the General
Assembly will give additional impetus to the momentum
created by the adoption of the Maputo Declaration.
We in southern Africa are disturbed about the low
levels of foreign direct investment in Africa. We are
deeply concerned about recent evidence presented by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
showing a drastic reduction in official development
assistance, in particular for Africa. More worrisome is the
fact that the target of 0.7 per cent in official development
assistance has never been entirely met, and, on the
contrary, it has reached only one third of the established
target.
Lack of adequate funding has contributed to poor
realization of the goals set by major international
conferences, including those contained in the Cairo
Programme of Action, which was reviewed during the
recently held twenty-first special session of the General
Assembly on population and development.
Without political will there will be no sustainable
development in the global economy, and the risk of the
further marginalization of developing countries, with all
of its negative consequences, will remain high.
In addition, the issue of external indebtedness
continues to be the single most important obstacle to the
development of many countries, particularly in Africa.
Efforts must be made to ensure that the Heavily Indebted
Poor Countries Debt Initiative is accessible to the
countries in need.
As I speak on this issue, I must once again thank the
international community for the assistance rendered to
Mozambique under this Initiative, as of last June. The fact
of the matter, however, is that our debt burden continues
to undermine our efforts to achieve sustainable
development. We believe it is high time for the
international community to start writing off the external
debt of those countries that have made visible and
4

sustainable progress in the implementation of tough
structural adjustment measures and political reforms. Such
a course of action would undoubtedly provide more
incentives for other countries to undertake these measures
and to redirect resources to the social sectors, in particular
for the provision of water and better education and to fight
the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
My Government wishes to commend the 5 May
Agreement signed by the Governments of Indonesia,
Portugal and United Nations which culminated in the
holding of a referendum in East Timor. We salute the
people of East Timor for the exemplary and orderly manner
in which they participated in the referendum and for the
clear and unequivocal way in which they decided for
independence. We are deeply saddened and gravely
concerned over the tragic developments that have followed
the announcement of the results of the referendum. We are
particularly distressed over the fact that massacres against
innocent civilians and indiscriminate destruction of property
have occurred, largely due to the failure by Indonesia to
secure order and by the international community to act
expeditiously.
The fact that the East Timor tragedy occurred when
similar situations had been prevented not long ago leads us
to believe in the existence of passivity and selectivity in
dealing with issues that undermine international peace and
security. We nevertheless commend the decision taken by
the Security Council to send a mission to Jakarta and Dili
and the subsequent actions taken with the cooperation of
the Government of Indonesia.
Along with restoring peace and stability, efforts must
be made to provide a speedy humanitarian response to
assist the people who were displaced or became refugees as
a result of the unprecedented levels of violence we have
witnessed in that territory. The tragedy in East Timor
underlines the importance of translating into deeds the
relevant recommendations contained in the “Report of the
Secretary-General to the Security Council on the protection
of civilians in armed conflict”.
Mozambique has given its modest contribution to the
United Nations Mission in East Timor and stands ready to
continue to play a role in future efforts of the international
community.
On behalf of my Government and on my own behalf,
I wish to seize this opportunity to convey our deepest
sympathy to those who have lost their loved ones. It is our
hope that their suffering will not be in vain, and that the
United Nations and all parties will ensure the early
implementation of the results of the referendum.
The issue of East Timor reminds us of other people
who are striving for self-determination. We are
encouraged by the latest positive developments that have
taken place in the Middle East. They confirm that, with
the necessary political will, taking into account the
interests of all parties to the conflict, peace is possible in
that region. Our task is to help the Palestinians and the
Israelis take maximum advantage of the momentum that
has been created as a result of the signing of the Sharm
el-Sheik Memorandum, on 4 September 1999, following
the deadlock in the implementation of the Wye River
Memorandum of 23 October 1998. Success in the
implementation of the current Memorandum depends on
strict observance of the principle of land for peace.
Recent incidents along the common border between
India and Pakistan are a source of great concern to all
peace-loving countries. We call upon both Governments
to exercise maximum restraint and to refrain from taking
actions that might jeopardize further the already volatile
situation along their common border.
It is our earnest hope that the United Nations
intervention in Kosovo will bring lasting peace and
stability to that territory and the region. To this end
Mozambique is contributing with a small team of police
officers.
We equally hope that now that the Lockerbie issue
is in the hands of justice, the Security Council will
honour its undertakings by lifting the sanctions on Libya.
Both the final settlement of this issue and the holding of
a referendum in Western Sahara will have a positive
impact on the development of Africa.
We are at the threshold of the next century, and the
challenges ahead are enormous. They require stronger
commitment and greater international cooperation. In this
connection, we wish to commend the Secretary-General
for organizing the Millennium Assembly and the
millennium summit for the year 2000. Indeed, there could
be no better way to inaugurate the new era than by
assembling all world leaders to reflect on the strategies
and policies that will govern our planet in the next
millennium. Whatever themes we choose to debate, they
should include the promotion of a culture of peace within
nations, regions and throughout the world, for this will
allow the realization of all other objectives, in particular
the eradication of poverty, promotion of development,
5

protection of human rights and meeting the challenges of
globalization.
It is therefore our hope that the forthcoming historic
gatherings will signal the beginning of the crystallization of
the process of building a better and safer world by
producing meaningful strategies, actions and policies that
will guide the United Nations of tomorrow. We agree that
these high-level events should not result merely in the
adoption of declarations that cannot be translated into
concrete actions for both the United Nations and
Governments.
We should therefore aim at pragmatic, action-oriented
and implementable decisions. Then, and only then, shall we
meet the aspirations of the founding fathers of our universal
Organization.


Today, we look ahead to the
new millennium. And at this last General Assembly of the
twentieth century, we look back on a century that taught
us much of what we need to know about the promise of
tomorrow. We have learned a great deal over the last one
hundred years: how to produce enough food for a
growing world population; how human activity affects the
environment; the mysteries of the human gene. An
information revolution now holds the promise of universal
access to knowledge. We have learned that open markets
create more wealth, that open societies are more just. We
have learned how to come together, through the United
Nations and other institutions, to advance common
interests and values.
Yet for all our intellectual and material advances, the
twentieth century has been deeply scarred by enduring
human failures: by greed and lust for power, by
hot-blooded hatreds and stone-cold hearts. At century’s
end, modern developments magnify greatly the dangers of
these timeless flaws. Powerful forces still resist
reasonable efforts to put a human face on the global
economy, to lift the poor, or to heal the earth’s
environment. Primitive claims of racial, ethnic or religious
superiority, when married to advanced weaponry and
2

terrorism, threaten to destroy the greatest potential for
human development in history, even as they make a
wasteland of the soul.
Therefore, we look to the future with hope, but with
unanswered questions. In the new millennium, will nations
be divided by ethnic and religious conflicts? Will the
nation-state itself be imperiled by them, or by terrorism? Or
will we keep coming closer together instead, while enjoying
the normal differences that make life more interesting? In
the new century, how will patriotism be defined — as faith
in a dream worth living, or as fear and loathing of other
people’s dreams? Will we be free of the fear of weapons of
mass destruction, or forced to teach our grandchildren how
to survive a nuclear, chemical or biological attack? Will
globalism bring shared prosperity, or will it make the
desperate of the world even more desperate? Will we use
science and technology to grow the economy and protect
the environment, or put it all at risk in a world dominated
by a struggle over natural resources?
The truth is that the twentieth century’s amazing
progress has not resolved these questions. But it has given
us the tools to make the answers come out right — the
knowledge, the resources, the institutions. Now, we must
use them. If we do, we can make the millennium not just
a changing of the digits, but a true changing of the times —
a gateway to greater peace, prosperity and freedom. With
that in mind, I offer three resolutions for the new
millennium.
First, let us resolve to wage an unrelenting battle
against poverty and for shared prosperity so that no part of
humanity is left behind in the global economy.
Globalization is not inherently divisive. While infant
mortality in developing countries has been cut nearly in half
since 1970, life expectancy has increased by 10 years.
According to the United Nations Human Development
Index, which measures a decent standard of living, a good
education, a long and healthy life, the gap between rich and
poor countries on this measure has actually declined.
Open trade and new technologies have been engines
of this progress; they have helped hundreds of millions to
see their prospects rise by marketing the fruits of their labor
and creativity abroad. With proper investments in education,
developing countries should be able to keep their best and
brightest talent at home and to gain access to global
markets for goods and services and capital.
But this promising future is far from inevitable. We
are still squandering the potential of far too many. As many
as 1.3 billion people still live on less than a dollar a day.
More than half the population of many countries has no
access to safe water. A person in South Asia is 700 times
less likely to use the Internet than someone in the United
States. Forty million people a year still die of hunger,
almost as many as the total number killed in World
War II. We must refuse to accept a future in which one
part of humanity lives on the cutting edge of a new
economy, while the other lives at the knife edge of
survival.
What must we do? We can start by remembering
that open markets advance the blessings and
breakthroughs we want to spread. That is why we in the
United States have worked to keep our markets open
during the recent global financial crisis, though it has
brought us record trade deficits. It is why we want to
launch a new global trade round when the World Trade
Organization meets in Seattle this fall. It is why we are
working to build a trading system that strengthens the
well-being of workers and consumers, protects the
environment and makes competition a race to the top, not
the bottom. It is why I am proud we have come together
at the International Labour Organization to ban abusive
child labour everywhere in the world.
We do not face a choice between trade and aid, but
instead the challenge to make both work for people who
need them. Aid should focus on what is known to work:
credit for poor people starting businesses, keeping girls in
school, meeting the needs of mothers and children.
Development aid should be used for development, not to
buy influence or finance donors’ exports. It should go
where Governments invest in their people and answer to
their concerns.
We should also come to the aid of countries
struggling to rise but held down by the burden of debt.
The G-7 nations have adopted a plan to reduce by up to
70 per cent the outstanding debt of the world’s poorest
countries, freeing resources for education, health and
growth.
All of us, developed and developing countries alike,
should take action now to halt global climate change.
What has that to do with fighting poverty? A great deal.
The most vulnerable members of the human family will
be hurt first and hurt most if rising temperatures devastate
agriculture, accelerate the spread of disease in tropical
countries and flood island nations.
3

Does this mean developing countries must sacrifice
growth to protect the environment? Absolutely not.
Throughout history, a key to human progress has been
willingness to abandon big ideas that are no longer true.
One big idea that is no longer true is that the only way to
build a modern economy is to use energy as we did in the
industrial age. The challenge and opportunity for
developing countries today is to skip the costs of the
industrial age by using technologies that improve the
economy and the environment at the same time.
Finally, to win the fight against poverty, we must
improve health care for all people. Over the next 10 years
in Africa, AIDS is expected to kill more people and orphan
more children than all the wars of the twentieth century
combined. Each year diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis
and pneumonia leave millions of children without parents
and millions of parents without children. Yet for all these
diseases, vaccine research is advancing too slowly, in part
because the potential customers are too poor. Only 2 per
cent of all global biomedical research is devoted to the
major killers in the developing world.
No country can break poverty’s bonds if its people are
disabled by disease and its Government overwhelmed by
the needs of the ill. With United Nations leadership, we
have come close to eradicating polio, once the scourge of
children everywhere. We are down to 5,000 reported cases
worldwide. I have asked our Congress to fund a major
increase to finish the job, and I ask other nations to follow
suit. We have begun a comprehensive battle against the
global AIDS epidemic. This year I am seeking another
$100 million for prevention, counselling and care in Africa.
I want to do more to get to those who need them most new
drugs that prevent transmission from mothers to newborns.
And today I commit the United States to a concerted effort
to accelerate the development and delivery of vaccines for
malaria, tuberculosis, AIDS and other diseases that
disproportionately affect the developing world. Many
approaches have been proposed, from tax credits to special
funds for the purchase of these vaccines.
To tackle these issues, I will ask public-health experts,
the chief executive officers of our pharmaceutical
companies, foundation representatives and members of
Congress to join me at a special White House meeting and
to strengthen incentives for research and development,
working with, not against, the private sector to meet our
common goal.
The second resolution I hope we will make today is to
strengthen the capacity of the international community to
prevent and whenever possible to stop outbreaks of mass
killing and displacement. This requires, as we all know,
shared responsibility, like the one West African nations
accepted when they acted to restore peace in Sierra
Leone; the one 19 democracies in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) embraced to stop ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia and in Kosovo; the one that Asian
and Pacific nations have now assumed in East Timor,
with the strong support of the entire United Nations,
including the United States.
Secretary-General Annan spoke for all of us during
the Kosovo conflict, and more recently in regard to East
Timor, when he said that ethnic cleansers and mass
murderers can find no refuge in the United Nations, no
source of comfort or justification in its Charter. We must
do more to make these words real. Of course, we must
approach this challenge with some considerable degree of
humility. It is easy to say “never again”, but much harder
to make it so. Promising too much can be as cruel as
caring too little.
But difficulties, dangers and costs are not an
argument for doing nothing. When we are faced with
deliberate, organized campaigns to murder whole peoples
or expel them from their land, the care of victims is
important but not enough. We should work to end the
violence. Our response in every case cannot and should
not be the same. Sometimes collective military force is
both appropriate and feasible. Sometimes concerted
economic and political pressure combined with diplomacy
is a better answer, as it was in making possible the
introduction of forces to East Timor. Of course, the way
the international community responds will depend on the
capacity of countries to act and on their perception of
their national interests. NATO acted in Kosovo, for
example, to stop a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing
in a place where we had important interests at stake and
the ability to act collectively.
The same considerations brought Nigerian troops and
their partners to Sierra Leone and Australians and others
to East Timor. That is proper — so long as we work
together, support each other and do not abdicate our
collective responsibility. I know that some are troubled
that the United States and others cannot respond to every
humanitarian catastrophe in the world. We cannot do
everything, everywhere. But simply because we have
different interests in different parts of the world does not
mean we can be indifferent to the destruction of innocents
in any part of the world. That is why we have supported
the efforts of Africans to resolve the deadly conflicts that
4

have raged through parts of their continent. It is why we
are working with friends in Africa to build the African
Crisis Response Initiative, which has trained more than
4,000 peacekeepers from six countries. It is why we are
helping establish an international coalition against genocide
to bring nations together to stop the flow of money and
arms to those who commit crimes against humanity.
There is also a critical need for countries emerging
from conflict to build police institutions accountable to
people and the law, often with the help of civilian police
from other nations. We need international forces with the
training to fill the gap between local police and military
peacekeepers, as French, Argentine, Italian and other
military police have done in Haiti and Bosnia. We will
work with our partners and the United Nations to continue
to ensure that such forces can deploy when they are needed.
What is the role of the United Nations of in preventing
mass slaughter and dislocation? Very large. Even in
Kosovo, NATO’s actions followed a clear consensus,
expressed in several Security Council resolutions, that the
atrocities committed by Serb forces were unacceptable and
that the international community had a compelling interest
in seeing them end. Had we chosen to do nothing in the
face of this brutality, I do not believe we would have
strengthened the United Nations. Instead we would have
risked discrediting everything it stands for.
By acting as we did, we helped to vindicate the
principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter to
give the United Nations the opportunity it now has to play
the central role in shaping Kosovo’s future. In the real
world, principles often collide and tough choices must be
made. The outcome in Kosovo is hopeful.
Finally, as we enter this new era, let our third
resolution be to protect our children against the possibility
that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will ever be
used again. The last millennium has seen constant advances
in the destructive power of weaponry. In the coming
millennium, this trend can continue or, if we choose, we
can reverse it with global standards universally respected.
We have made more progress than many realize. After
the collapse of the Soviet Union, Belarus, Kazakhstan and
Ukraine courageously chose to give up their nuclear
weapons. America and Russia have moved forward with
substantial arms reductions. President Yeltsin and I agreed
in June, even as we await Russian ratification of START II,
to begin talks on a START III treaty that will cut our cold-
war arsenals by 80 per cent from their height. Brazil has
joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), capping a process that has almost totally
eliminated the threat of nuclear proliferation in Latin
America. We have banned chemical weapons from the
Earth, though we must implement that commitment fully
and gain universal coverage. One hundred and fifty-two
nations have signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty and, while India and Pakistan did test nuclear
weapons last year, the international reaction proved that
the global consensus against proliferation is very strong.
We need to bolster the standards to reinforce that
consensus. We must reaffirm our commitment to the
NPT, strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention and
make fast progress on a treaty to ban production of fissile
materials. To keep existing stocks from the wrong hands,
we should strengthen the Convention on Physical
Protection of Nuclear Materials. And today, again I ask
our Congress to approve the Comprehensive Nuclear-
Test-Ban Treaty.
We must stop the spread of nuclear weapons,
materials and expertise at the source. Since 1992, we have
worked with Russia and the other nations of the former
Soviet Union to do that. We are expanding that effort
because challenges remain, but thus far we can say that
the nightmare scenario of deadly weapons flowing
unchecked across borders and of scientists selling their
services en masse to the highest bidder has been avoided.
Now, we must work to deny weapons of mass
destruction to those who would use them. For almost a
decade, nations have stood together to keep the Iraqi
regime from threatening its people and the world with
such weapons. Despite all the obstacles Saddam Hussein
has placed in our path, we must continue to ease the
suffering of the people of Iraq. At the same time, we
cannot allow the Government of Iraq to flout 40 — and
I say 40 — successive United Nations Security Council
resolutions and to rebuild his arsenal.
Just as important is the challenge of keeping deadly
weapons away from terrorist groups. They may have
weaker capabilities than States, but they have fewer
compunctions about using such weapons. The possibility
that terrorists will threaten us with weapons of mass
destruction can be met with neither panic nor
complacency. It requires serious, deliberate, disciplined
concern and effective cooperation from all of us.
There are many other challenges. Today I have
spoken about just three: the need to do something about
5

the world’s poor and to put a human face on the global
economy; the need to do more to prevent killing and
dislocation of innocents; the need to do more to ensure that
weapons of mass destruction will never be used on our
children. I believe they are the most important. In meeting
them, the United Nations is indispensable.
It is precisely because we are committed to the United
Nations that we have worked hard to support the effective
management of this body. But the United States also has a
responsibility to equip the United Nations with the
resources it needs to be effective. As I think most Members
know, I have strongly supported the United States meeting
all its financial obligations to the United Nations and I will
continue to do so. We will do our very best to succeed this
year.
When the cold war ended, the United States could
have chosen to turn away from the opportunities and
dangers of the world. Instead, we have tried to be engaged,
involved and active. We know this moment of unique
prosperity and power for the United States is a source of
concern to many. I can only answer by saying this: In the
seven years that I have been privileged to come here to
speak to this body, America has tried to be a force for
peace. We believe we are better off when nations resolve
their differences by force of argument rather than force of
arms. We have sought to help former adversaries like
Russia and China become prosperous, stable members of
the world community because we feel far more threatened
by the potential weakness of the world’s leading nations
than by their strength. Instead of imposing our values on
others, we have sought to promote a system of
government — democracy — that empowers people to
choose their own destinies according to their own values
and aspirations. We have sought to keep our markets open
because we believe a strong world economy benefits our
own workers and businesses, as well as the people of the
world who are selling to us. I hope that we have been and
will continue to be good partners with the rest in the new
millennium.
Not long ago, I went to a refugee camp in Macedonia.
The people I met there, children and adults alike, had
suffered horrible, horrible abuses, but they had never given
up hope because they believed that there is an international
community that stands for their dignity and their freedom.
I want to make sure that, 20 or 50 or 100 years from now,
people everywhere will still believe that about our United
Nations. So let us resolve, in the bright dawn of the new
millennium, to bring in an era in which our desire to create
will overwhelm our capacity to destroy. If we do that, then,
through the United Nations and far-sighted leaders,
humanity finally can live up to its name.


On behalf of our Government and
in my capacity as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, I
wish to extend our sincere congratulations to you,
Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, on your election as President of the
General Assembly. I would also like to thank you for the
kind remarks you made about my country as you assumed
your high position.
We have worked together for many decades. Thanks
in good measure to your statespersonship, as neighbours we
live together in peace and have joined hands as equals to
ensure the all-round fulfilment of both our peoples. These
experiences convince us that you will discharge your
responsibilities as President of the General Assembly in a
manner that will help humanity make our common world a
better place for all. We are pleased that you will be
working with the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who has
demonstrated unquestionable commitment to the realization
of the attainment of the goals of the Organization.
The Charter of this Organization and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provide all of us with the
vision towards which we should strive. At the time these
documents were adopted, they reflected the international
determination to ensure that the catastrophe occasioned by
the rise of fascism and Nazism should never recur. We
recall them today because we believe that the time has
come for determined measures to be taken to ensure that
they inform what happens in the common world we all
share. The central message they contain is expressed in the
words of the preamble to the Declaration:
“the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter
reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in
the dignity and worth of the human person and in the
equal rights of men and women and have determined
to promote social progress and better standards of
life in larger freedom”.
We believe that the time has come for all of us to
ensure that we work together to reconstruct human society
in a manner consistent with this perspective. We further
believe that what we have said constitutes a particular and
historic challenge to those who occupy positions of
political leadership in the modern era, those who, like us,
will have the privilege of addressing this General
Assembly. Only time will tell whether we have the moral
and intellectual courage to rise to this challenge.
But this we feel we can say: that conditions exist in
the world today for us successfully to pursue the vision
contained in the United Nations documents to which I
have referred. What may be in short supply is the courage
of the politicians, as opposed to an abundance of good-
sounding rhetoric. What are these conditions of which we
speak? The cold war has come to an end. There is no
sign anywhere of an ideology-driven contest among
super-Powers which dictates that each should seek to
destroy the other in order to protect itself. It is true that
a number of countries still possess weapons of mass
destruction, especially nuclear weapons, which constitute
a threat. The only logical way to address this is
vigorously to sue for universal disarmament and the
destruction of such weapons.
Secondly, I believe it would be correct to say that
the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have
opted for democratic forms of government. Having
learned from their own experiences, the nations have
turned their backs on dictatorship. Of course, we cannot
say that such dictatorships do not exist or that no attempt
will be made in the future to establish them. But we can
make bold to say that these exceptions prove the rule,
rather than disprove the proposition we are trying to
advance.
The combination of these two factors should lead to
three conclusions, at least. The first is that there should be
no need on the part of any country to seek to establish
spheres of influence as a supposed necessary condition for
the advancement of its national interests.
Secondly, the very sustenance of democracy across
the globe requires that in every democratic country the
ordinary people should feel that they actually do enjoy the
right to determine their destiny. In other words, no
country should be required to restrict its exercise of this
8

right simply because some other more powerful country
dictates that this should be so.
Thirdly, these circumstances create the possibility for
a more democratic system of international governance, as
would be reflected by a correct restructuring of this very
Organization. In any case, the process of globalization
necessarily redefines the concept and the practice of
national sovereignty. The frontiers of that sovereignty are
being pushed back, especially as regards the smaller
countries of the world, such as our own. As this happens,
inevitably, so does it become necessary that a compensatory
movement take place towards the reinforcement of the
impact of these countries on the system of global
governance through the democratization of the system of
international relations.
The developments we have spoken of also suggest that
perhaps, and depending on what we all do, humanity has
never had as bright a prospect for durable world peace and
security as it does today. The mere spread of democracy
throughout the world speaks of a greater commitment
among the nations to the resolution of national and
international conflicts by peaceful means.
I am certain that when President Abdelaziz Bouteflika,
the current Chairperson of the Organization of African
Unity (OAU), addresses the Assembly, he will report on the
important decision recently taken at the Algiers summit of
the OAU to exclude from its ranks, with effect from the
next summit, all military regimes that may still exist on the
African continent. A further decision was taken to assist
such countries resolutely to move towards a democratic
system of government.
The developments on which we have commented
would suggest that the Organization has a responsibility to
focus especially on the objective contained in Article I,
paragraph 1, of its Charter, which says,
“to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to the peace ... and
to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity
with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”.
This, we believe, imposes a solemn and supreme
responsibility on the United Nations to work for the
prevention of conflicts and to endeavour to resolve them so
that a durable peace can be established. Sometimes, our
response to conflicts has been to wait for them to develop
into violence, and even wars, and subsequently to
intervene through costly peacekeeping operations. These,
at times, serve to freeze those conflicts, perpetuate
polarization and make their timely resolution more
difficult.
Moreover, the requirement on the United Nations to
make such interventions to prevent the outbreak of
hostilities imposes an obligation on the United Nations
that it should be seen by Governments and peoples as a
truly even-handed interlocutor and peacemaker. It can
attain this only if it works genuinely to
“develop friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples”,
as stated in Article I, paragraph 2, of its Charter.
If indeed we are seriously committed to these critical
objectives of peace and democracy in the world, then we
have no excuse to permit the further postponement of the
meaningful restructuring of the United Nations. If we
were honest with ourselves, we would admit that what is
blocking progress is the desire to accommodate what are
perceived as new power relations, to reinstitutionalize
relations of inequality within the United Nations in an
amended form. This is based on the thesis that the
institutionalization of such relations has precedence over
the Organization’s founding principle of respect for the
principle of equal rights among the nations.
In the situation of the cold war and the prevalence
of dictatorship in many countries, the politics of power
might have been seen as the only path to survival. The
management of the world today through the exercise of
such power, however modified, will itself subvert the
objectives of democracy and peace, spawning pretenders
to the throne at global, continental and regional levels.
Simultaneously as the United Nations focuses on the
critical question of the prevention of conflict, so must it
attend to such issues as the elimination of weapons of
mass destruction, the implementation of the ban on anti-
personnel mines, the removal of mines in those countries
which face this problem and the control of the
proliferation of small arms. Of course, none of these
proposals gainsay the need for the United Nations to act
with all necessary vigour to help end all existing conflicts
of which it is seized, including those in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Angola, Western Sahara, East
Timor, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Kosovo and others.
9

We started off with a quotation from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, which speaks of affirming
the dignity and worth of the human person, the promotion
of social progress and securing a better life for all. We
argued that conditions exist for movement towards the
realization of the objectives spelt out in the Declaration. It
is a matter of common cause among all of us that the levels
of poverty, ignorance and disease that continue to afflict
billions around the globe constitute a direct denial of the
dignity and worth of the human person to which we have
committed ourselves. I am certain that we would also agree
that the process of globalization has also been accompanied
by growing inequality within and among countries. We
have also seen how movements of short-term capital have
produced disastrous economic consequences in some
countries.
As with the challenges of peace and democracy, it is
our firm belief that sufficient resources exist within the
world economy actually to address the social progress and
the better life for all for which the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights calls. Further to this, science and technology
continue to develop in such a way that it is difficult to
believe that, taken together with the large concentrations of
capital that characterize the world economy, the means do
not exist within human society to make the required impact
on poverty, ignorance and disease. Indeed, it can be argued
quite rationally that international peace, democracy and
prosperity are a necessary condition for the further rapid
growth of the world economy, and with it the further
expansion of the corporations, both small and big, which
require global markets.
Similarly, the revolution in information and
communication technology, a critical driver of the process
of globalization, both enables and calls for higher levels of
education and standards of living among the billions who
constitute the human population. However, it is clear that
there is no automatic or inherent mechanism within the
operation of the markets to enable both capital and
technology to make the sort of impact we are talking about
on all countries of the globe. When we say this we should
not be taken to mean that we are contemptuous of all that
has been said about what each country needs to do to create
the conditions conducive to investment and technology
transfers. Nor should it be taken to mean that we are
reopening the debate about the role of markets in the
allocation of resources. What we are saying is that the
functioning of the markets does not and cannot exclude
conscious interventions being made, both to increase
economic opportunities and to raise the standards of living
and the life possibilities of many in the world denied their
human dignity by the scourge of poverty.
In his interesting book Living on Thin Air, the
British author Charles Leadbeater, writes:
“The new (knowledge driven) economy needs a
mobilizing vision and institutions fashioned to make
it real. Bit by bit, our institutions are changing
through reform, reorganisation and restructuring —
but the process is much too slow, haphazard and
piecemeal — it must become more conscious,
imaginative and radical.”
Once more, the matter turns on the will of the
political leaders actually to discover among themselves
the moral and intellectual courage to do what is correct
and necessary. What is correct and necessary also requires
that in this field as well, which affects socio-economic
matters, we should review the functioning of all
multilateral institutions, including those that belong within
the United Nations family. This should be done to ensure
that these too reflect the very necessary imperative of the
democratization of the international system of governance.
The United Nations documents to which we referred
earlier give us a starting point. Accordingly, we believe
that there is no need for anyone among us to rediscover
a new vision that would inform our actions to build a new
world which affirms the dignity and worth of the human
person. What is necessary is that we match the beliefs we
profess with the necessary action.
We speak of action that will practically address the
related issues of peace, democracy and development.
I am certain that such a practical programme of
action would meet the aspirations not only of the
members of the Organization of African Unity and the
Non-Aligned Movement, of which we are a member. It
would also respond to the most deep-seated feelings of
the peoples of the developed North, who can have no
interest in conflict, oppression and poverty, even if these
occur beyond the borders of their own countries.
It also goes without saying that the democratic
systems in which we operate would also require that,
through committed advocacy, we should secure the
support of the electors for what should be a programme
of action of the United Nations for the twenty-first
century.
10

The evolution of human society has presented the
world leaders who will stand at this rostrum with new
possibilities to move our globe a giant step forward towards
a new actuality, of which the poor and the powerless dream
every day. We will be betraying those millions if we do not
act to turn their dream into reality. Let future generations
not say that because of the force of inertia we failed to act.