I bring heartfelt greetings
from the Government and friendly people of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and I am
particularly pleased and, indeed, honoured to be called upon to address the
forty-seventh session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Let me first join those speakers who have preceded me in congratulating
the former President, Mr. Samir Shihabi of Saudi Arabia, on his efficient and
proficient handling of our past deliberations. Then I must hasten to welcome
our new President, assuring you, Sir, of my country's active support and
cooperation. Clearly, Mr. President, the very skilful and methodical manner
in which you have been guiding and conducting our work augurs well for a
productive session.
Next I wish to commend most highly our Secretary-General,
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who has been serving the cause of our Organization
with diligence, dignity and dexterity in the face of challenging times. The
Government and people of Saint Kitts and Nevis welcome you,
Mr. Secretary-General, to this, your first session of the General Assembly as
Secretary-General, and we have every confidence in your commitment to
international peace and security as the bases for democracy and development.
When we met last year for the Assembly's forty-sixth session it was in an
atmosphere of great optimism. The cold war was over, Kuwait was liberated,
freedom and democracy were breaking out all over Europe and in the former
Soviet States, positive steps for the reduction of nuclear arms were taking
place. The world waited with anticipation to reap the benefits of the
all-embracing peace dividend. In my address then I said:
"The enhancement of education, the eradication of poverty, the
reduction of unemployment, the maintenance of good health, the provision
of affordable housing, the adapting of science and technology to

socio-economic development these must be the dividends that flow from
diverting global financial resources away from the amassing of armaments,
to be invested in human development. This is the challenge we face.
This is the new battle we must join and we must not fail."
(A/46/PV.25. p. 6)
It is perhaps too soon to say that we have failed, but we have certainly not
succeeded. Once again, the attention of the international community has been
distracted by fierce and despicable atrocities in far-flung theatres of
regional conflict.
On the one hand, we are shocked by the gruesome and intense savagery of
the fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The reports of detention camp
atrocities, indiscriminate killings, starvation and torture, seem like a
reincarnation of less civilized times, and it is difficult to accept them as
part of the twentieth century.

On the other hand, the scenes of human degradation, suffering and death
from starvation and disease emanating from Somalia appear at last to have
jolted the conscience of the international community and stimulated a
humanitarian response to the crisis.
In these theatres of civil strife, our relief efforts are disrupted by
those who are seemingly untouched by human suffering. Relief convoys come
under fire, and food intended for the victims of war is hijacked and ends up
in the coffers of those whose very actions are perpetuating the crisis.
I am aware of the outstanding efforts of the Secretary-General to ensure
that the United Nations has responded to these crises with urgency and in
positive and practical ways. We must however do more. We must mobilize the
resources, diplomatic and other, of the Member States to bring an end to the
fighting and, secondly, we must continue to intensify the relief effort for
those in need of the basic necessities of food, shelter and medicines.
It is serious cause for concern that countries in which the economy is in
shambles, and in which production of goods and services is practically at a
standstill, can still find the means to procure massive amounts of arms and
ammunition and sustain armed conflicts for many months and even years. Here
again we see resources that should be channelled to address issues of human
development being diverted into weapons of destruction for the perpetration of
violence.
It is therefore clear that there is also an urgent need for a reduction
in both conventional and non-conventional weapons and I call upon the Assembly
to pursue this objective.

While much of our attention seems to be directed towards Eastern Europe
let us be reminded that peace and development continue to elude the people of
Haiti and South Africa.
The people of Haiti still cannot breathe the pure air of freedom; they
still suffer under an oppressive illegal regime which blatantly and
monstrously repudiated the will of the people, which was so freely and
overwhelmingly expressed in the elections of December 1990.
Saint Kitts and Nevis, and indeed the entire Caribbean community,
continue to condemn this dastardly assault upon the democratic process in
Haiti, and we maintain our call for the restoration of constitutional
democracy in Haiti. I call on the Member States of the United Nations to
ostracize the illegal regime in Haiti and to take all appropriate measures to
restore democracy and the constitutionally elected government in Haiti.
In the meantime we must continue and increase humanitarian assistance to
the people of Haiti through international relief organizations, and ensure
that our assistance reaches those who need it most. We must also be prepared
to mobilize significant development assistance to Haiti when democracy is
restored.
In relation to South Africa, we in the Caribbean have been strong in our
condemnation of apartheid. I have no doubt that our principled stand, along
with that of other countries has contributed to the eventual dismantling of
the main pillars of apartheid. Encouraged by the African National Congress,
and as a means of encouraging further progress, we relaxed some of the
sanctions that we had imposed. The recent upsurge in violence, which appears
to enjoy tacit support from elements within the ruling regime itself, must

cause us to doubt the sincerity of the De Klerk administration to lay
apartheid in its final resting place.
The Government and people of Saint Kitts and Nevis call upon the General
Assembly at this forty-seventh session to condemn the wanton killings in South
Africa and to appeal to all parties to resume talks in good faith, for the
sake of democracy and good government. We call for an end to the violence in
South Africa. We urge the immediate resumption of the negotiating process
towards a free and democratic South Africa. We re-emphasize our unshakable
solidarity with the anti-apartheid struggle and we appeal to the South African
regime to exercise more effective control over its security forces. The
climate for negotiation has to be restored in order to facilitate the
emergence and subsequent establishment of a democratic and non-racial South
Africa. We seize this opportunity to invite the international community, if
necessary, to remobilize its forces in the struggle against apartheid, in the
struggle for freedom, peace and democracy in South Africa.
Let us not abandon the oppressed people in South Africa. Let us stand
firm instead until justice, equality and freedom become realities. The
primary objective must be "one person, one vote". This is the only brand of
democracy we in the Caribbean understand. This is the only brand of democracy
we want for ourselves and for our brothers and sisters in South Africa.
We commend the role the United Nations has played and continues to play
in respect of Arab-Israeli relations. We regard the peace talks that have
started as a positive development and we urge that they be continued in good
faith by all parties concerned, so that a just and lasting solution which
addresses all of the issues of fundamental rights, security and economic and
social development can be achieved.

The people in developing countries are still anxiously awaiting the
"peace dividend". This body of nations must work assiduously at bringing an
end to conflicts, at ending hunger and starvation. We must, in short, strive
to move beyond a mere crisis-response modality and shift into a posture to
effect just and sustainable development throughout the world. It is a
monumental task, which will require massive mobilization of resources,
sensible and sensitive application of those resources, and an unprecedented
level of cooperation between developed and developing countries.
There must be a major emphasis on human resource development so that the
people may be empowered to drive the development process. In this decade of
the disabled, and beyond, they too must be involved. My Government is making
every effort to ensure that the disabled of our country are involved in the
total process of mobilization. In order to increase public awareness and to
assist in the development of the disabled, my Government has spearheaded a
major fund-raising effort through the annual walkathon undertaken by Ministers
of Government as part of our celebration of independence. We also support
training programmes through our own school for the deaf and private sector
support institutions.

The people must be given the tools education, basic infrastructure,
appropriate technology transfer and the life-quality-enhancing support of
affordable housing, good health care and facilities for recreation.
Instead of a massive mobilization of financial resources for developing
countries, however, we are faced with reductions in concessional financing and
across-the-board cuts in aid. These will hit the poorest and smallest
countries hardest and undermine our efforts to reduce poverty, stimulate
growth and protect the environment.
Free trade is being touted as the new panacea for all our ills. There
is, however, no single prescription for the economic ailments of all
countries. There is no one solution for the rich and the poor, for the
industrialized and the non-industrialized, for the developed and the
developing. Even within the category of developing countries, there are
structural differences between small island developing countries and others.
Special consideration must therefore be given to small island developing
countries.
In matters of trade we cannot be equal partners. How can we, when large
countries, having the benefit of economies of scale, highly developed
infrastructure and modern technology, can swamp our markets with virtually any
product? On the other hand, the per capita cost to us of providing the
infrastructure to support an export-oriented development is higher than it is
in developed countries.
In the Caribbean we recognize that we must accept the principal
responsibility for progress in our own development. We have demonstrated a
commitment to reform and diversification, we have taken bold initiatives

involving greater fiscal and economic discipline, and we are willing to do
more. But we cannot do the job alone.
We have made significant progress in regional cooperation and are now
poised to take further initiatives to strengthen our functional, economic and
political cooperation. We know that we can do more for ourselves through more
effective regional integration.
As a Caribbean people, we have to be realistic in assessing the potential
impact of our regional integration process. The members of the international
community too must be realistic in designing their policies for interacting
with us in the Caribbean community. The fact is that, as developing
countries most of us being island developing countries in the Caribbean
community we are individually small. When taken together and looked at in
the international context, we are still small, and the basic problems,
inequities and vulnerabilities of small developing countries still afflict us.
We want to play an effective part in the international economic system;
we want to be equal partners in the evolving global trading arrangements. In
our case, however, equal does not mean identical, because we do not start from
the same premise. The basic conditions and inequities which necessitated
special arrangements under agreements such as the Lome Convention, the
Caribbean Basin Initiative and CARIBCAN are still present. Therefore, while
we support the call for an early and successful conclusion to the Uruguay
Round of trade negotiations, we urge that as we, the small island developing
countries of the Caribbean, work assiduously to transform our economies,
earnest consideration should be given to the continuation of preferential
trading arrangements to small countries such as ours. In particular, special

treatment of the sensitive commodities, sugar and bananas, is vital to our
stable adjustment to the changing global economic environment.
The other area for urgent action is the maintenance of concessional flows
of aid to developing countries. I am aware that global recession and the
recent uncertainties reflected in the financial system in Europe will put
severe pressures on donor budgets and will thus encourage the trend towards
the reduction of official development assistance. I must, in spite of the
difficulties, renew the call for developed countries to recommit themselves to
reaching the United Nations target for official development assistance
amounting to 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product.
A reduction in aid would undermine our efforts to promote sustainable
development and protect the environment. Yet those objectives were the very
heart of the consensus reached at the historic United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development the Earth Summit held at Rio de Janeiro in
June of this year.
That conference provided us with a rare, almost unique, opportunity for
global cooperation and partnership. We paused there to chart afresh the
course for improving the quality of life for all peoples in our time and for
future generations, through an integrated, caring and people-oriented approach
to sustainable development. We left there with a clear commitment to balance
the urgency of environmental preservation with the imperatives of human
development.
We signed the Convention on biological diversity to encourage the
rational management of natural resources, to ensure that the people of
developing countries will justly gain the benefits associated with the use of
their resources. We also signed the Convention on climate change, because

Saint Kitts and Nevis, and indeed the entire Caribbean region, are susceptible
to the ravages of hurricanes, and, as island States, we are certainly
vulnerable to the effects of global warming and a rise in sea level.
The execution of those Conventions must have special meaning to our women
and children. The United Nations has already committed itself to devoting
special attention to them. Saint Kitts and Nevis fully acknowledges the
importance and contribution of our women to sustainable development. Women in
my country are fully involved as equal partners in the decision-making and
development processes. The rights of women and the entitlement to such rights
have been integrated into my country's development policies and programmes,
which are implemented by a Ministry of Women's Affairs. We recognize the
strong correlation between environmentally sound development and population
growth, and we provide family-planning programmes involving education,
information and accessible services.
We maintain our commitment to our children through the provision of
improved educational facilities and appropriate curricula, a variety of
training opportunities, recreational facilities, improved housing and a strong
programme of primary health care in which we maintain our standard of
100 per cent immunization against the common communicable diseases.
The importance of our marine environment to the health, welfare and total
development of our Caribbean people cannot be overemphasized. Consequently
reports of the impending shipment of a large quantity of plutonium through the
Caribbean Sea later this month are a matter of the gravest concern to us in
Saint Kitts and Nevis. This is a matter which must and will be addressed by
the Caribbean community.

I call on the international community to support us in our efforts to
protect our marine environment and to prohibit the movement of hazardous waste
through our region.
We in Saint Kitts and Nevis will continue to play our part in preserving
our planet by implementing national policies and programmes based on domestic
social and economic realities, including solid waste management, water quality
improvement, control of soil and coastal erosion, forestry management,
agricultural and fisheries development and preservation of our marine
environment. In Rio, we endorsed an implementation programme known as
Agenda 21. It addresses the major issues related to sustainable development.
It charts the way to improved living standards in developing countries. We
must now translate this blueprint into tangible action by providing the
financial resources for its implementation. Within the programme, access to
the resources must not be tied to conditions that would impose further burdens
on the people of developing countries. Such resources must be made available
on preferential terms, with special concessions for small island developing
countries. I can stress the urgency of this requirement in no better way than
to repeat what I said to the historic assembly in Rio:
"We cannot aspire to save the planet for future generations, while
consigning the poor, the underprivileged, the underdeveloped of this
generation to a life of persistent misery and deprivation."
The task *is enormous, the challenge is monumental, but within the
international community we have the tools. All that is left is for us to
summon the commitment to preserve, develop and manage our combined heritage
with the objective of guaranteeing a better quality of life for all people,
everywhere.


Let me begin by congratulating you, Sir, and
the nation of Bulgaria, on your assumption of the presidency of the United
Nations General Assembly. May I also congratulate the Secretary-General,
Mr. Boutros-Ghali, on his leadership in the struggle for peace. I wish him
success in his endeavours.
Today I speak for an Israel that has chosen to step out of the shadows of
the past to prepare for the invitation of a new future. The world is alive
with the impulse for change. The end of conflict is no longer a Utopian

fantasy. It is the dictate of realism and of universal self-interest. We
look to the future in a world that wants peace.
Like a hidden Samson, the forces of change have pushed aside the pillars
of conventional wisdom, which proclaimed that military power is the source of
national strength and prestige. This is no longer true. The cost of
maintaining a significantly large army can deplete the resources of the
richest countries, even if the weaponry remains unused. Around our changing
world, the flow of knowledge has superseded military might as the source of
real strength and social stability.

The flow of knowledge no longer stops at national frontiers. It is not
possible in the age of modern communications to shield peoples from truth and
reality. Eventually, even dictators must face the fact that the best censors
cannot block the free flow of ideas. But knowledge cannot be acquired without
the right to doubt, the readiness to change. Knowledge is not available
without freedom, and so democracy is prevailing throughout the world.
In this new era, the era of knowledge, the governing principles are those
of democratic structures, market-based economies, open borders, demilitarized
international and regional relations, and respect for human rights. But while
all nations should embrace these new principles, national traditions and
identities retain their power. Nation-States will remain the focus of
allegiance and social pride.
To reconcile national identity, regional cooperation and universal
solidarities is the central issue of contemporary life.
The United Nations was established in an era that no longer exists. Yet
its ideals and structures can meet the challenges and dangers of this new
age. We support the "Agenda for Peace" offered by the Secretary-General. We
support and will participate in the attempt to build a global protection
system.
The United Nations must be the headquarters for an all-embracing struggle
to safeguard the environment against new threats. It must be a powerhouse to
arrest starvation. It must develop the institutions and the ability to
intervene when necessary to stop otherwise insoluble civil wars. The United
Nations must reorganize to face these problems in a global capacity.
In our own region, we must understand that even if our geography and
people have not changed, the world has changed. No longer can we live on

disappearing premises. For generations, the conflicts in the Middle East were
nurtured by global conflicts by the cold war and hot competition. Within
the context of super-Power rivalry, the belligerents in the Middle East were
generously supplied with shining armour. But where there were once evil
empires, we now see only the desire for a peaceful world. Russia has
changed. The United States has emerged from the cold war with renewed respect
from the world for its democratic drive for peace. The third world is
changing, with many nations ending old hostilities and building new
economies. In Africa, the forces of racism are being gradually driven out.
In the Middle East itself let's face it the peace between Israel and Egypt
is attaining the respect of age. There is a fresh atmosphere in our time.
The time is now upon us for the nations of the Middle East to come to
terms with the new realities, to make a living on their own. We can learn to
benefit from peaceful coexistence. If we are to survive, we must understand
that the dangers and opportunities we face are regional rather than national.
In an age of long-range missiles, national defence must be a collective
effort. To provide our people with modern standards of living we must have
open borders and mutually beneficial exchanges.
For too long the Middle East has been caught up in national conflicts and
national rivalries for the glorification of national leaders. We need to
build a new Middle East of, by and for the people. In our effort to build
this new future for the Middle East, Israel does not ignore its still existing
disagreements with our neighbours. The record shows that we are working to
solve them humanely, honourably and, wherever possible, permanently. We are
currently engaged in bilateral negotiations to bring an end to the conflicts
of the past and multilateral negotiations to lay the foundation for the future.

In the bilateral negotiations, we are negotiating with the Jordanians,
the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. The committed leadership of
the United States has played a central role in bringing all the parties into
face-to-face negotiations.
With the Jordanians, the solutions are awaiting the parties. We face
common problems we must confront together, including the possible Jordanian
connection to Palestinian self-government and beyond. Our relations with the
Hashemite Kingdom have seen open hostilities but also tacit efforts to
overcome these hostilities. We look forward to a complete peace with the
Kingdom of Jordan in the near future.
With the Palestinian people, our conflict has been long and painful. We
seek to end this conflict. We are looking for a bridge to cross the gulf of
bitter memories, painful hatreds and emotion-laden suspicions. We have
offered to negotiate an interim or transitional goal. There is no difference
between the two. In fact, one can note with satisfaction that the
Palestinians have agreed to this gradual approach. The direction is clear,
even if the bridge will be built slowly.
The suggested path is an interim self-government arrangement, as
conceived at Camp David. We know that this proposal is imperfect in some
respects. Self-government is less than independence. But it offers the
flexibility of an arrangement that will last no more than five years. During
this limited period of time, Palestinians in the territories will enjoy
self-government. The opportunity to select, through democratic political
elections, a Palestinian administrative council will enable the Palestinian
people to exercise a double measure of freedom: the freedom to govern their
own lives and to do so politically and democratically.

But instead of attempting to draw a map of a self-governing territory
and it is doubtful that this could be achieved now we have suggested a
definite timetable. So, while this proposal lacks the clarity of a map, it
provides the commitment of a calendar. This proposal is clearly a departure
from the present situation. It has the dynamics of a voyage to a new destiny,
a bridge which begins at one shore and reaches another.
I know it will not be an easy choice for either side. But neither the
existing situation nor the foreseeable future contains a more promising
alternative. I am speaking for an Israeli Government that has firmly made up
its mind and seeks the expeditious implementation of this proposal.
In negotiations, the parties tend to scrutinize every letter, every dot.
I hope that the Palestinians will also perceive the spirit of our intent,
which is to extricate ourselves from the position of domination over another
people. We have never in our history as a people sought domination over
others. We wholeheartedly seek a future where the children of both peoples
will escape the agonies of a distorted past and live under a clear sky of
security and hope.

With the Syrians, we have begun a dialogue in full daylight for the first
time in 44 years. It is necessary now to translate the change in the mood
between our two nations into viable and carefully constructed accords
expressing a mutual interest in security and cooperation.
We call for a departure from old dogmas and all-embracing dictates, and
we hope the Syrians will adopt the same approach. We understand the need to
safeguard the security and freedom of both nations, theirs and ours. It is
our responsibility to ensure that those who have survived the wars of the past
will have the opportunity to open a new peaceful chapter in the history of the
two peoples.
The leaders of both countries should be directly involved in these
negotiations, which are in need of a new approach and creative thinking. I
call on the President of Syria to set aside his reservations and meet with the
Prime Minister of Israel.
We have made clear to the Syrians that Security Council resolutions
242 (1967) and 338 (1973) contain a territorial dimension, combined with other
components of peace and security which must be equally respected.
We believe in a comprehensive solution involving all issues and all
parties. Yet we do not consider it wise to link one negotiation to another,
or to postpone an agreement with one country because of delays elsewhere. One
negotiating process should not be handcuffed to another.
With respect to Lebanon, Israel holds no territorial claims; nor does it
seek to influence the political destiny of that country. We recall peaceful
relations with Lebanon at a time when it was internally balanced and
tranquil. We hope that such a time will return again. The moment Lebanon
finds peace within itself and independence from outside intervention, Lebanon
and Israel will live in peace again.

Looking at the bilateral negotiations, we recall that the success of our
negotiations with Egypt stemmed from dialogue at many levels of society:
decision makers, leaders, businessmen, academicians. We appeal to all our
Arab neighbours to establish the same dialogue today. There is no room for
timidity, reluctance or boycotts in a peace process. Peacemaking should not
be a hideaway operation.
I hope our neighbours realize that Israel has implemented unilateral
confidence-building measures. We have drastically changed our settlement
policies, altered our policies towards the Palestinian people, offered new
proposals for self-government and suggested target dates for the
implementation of this process. We have done these things unconditionally.
Yet confidence-building measures call for reciprocity. We seek an end to the
unjustified economic boycott and the cessation of terror.
We shall not allow ourselves or our adversaries to escape this chance for
peace. Yet we cannot turn our region into a new Middle East by just
negotiating old disputes. Our new challenges are on our horizons, not only in
our frontiers.
We say to our Arab neighbours: the real danger is not Israel. The real
danger is poverty. The real danger is poverty that creates protest, even if
it is occasionally cloaked in a religious mantle. Poverty and protest
endanger both the Arab nations and Israel. Israel does not want to become an
isolated island in an ocean of resentment.
Two hundred forty million people live today in the Middle East. The
majority of them live in a state of want. In 30 years, there will be
500 million people in the region, two thirds residing in Africa, one third in
Asia.

The poverty of the Middle East has nothing to do with geography. It has
to do with the use and misuse of available and potential resources in the
region. The gap between wealthy and poor nations is wide: the more
prosperous nations enjoy a per capita income 10 times greater than their
poorer neighbours. The earth beneath us will continue to tremble if the
wealthy remain oblivious to the needy, both within and beyond national borders.
The multilateral negotiations are composed of five areas: economics,
arms control, refugees, ecology and water. Progress in these areas will more
likely be attained if we can restructure the multilateral talks, which
initially created two advantages: the cluster of issues and the participation
of many Arab countries. But the talks suffer as well from loose organization,
which has resulted in seminars rather than negotiations, and from the lack of
a concentrated thrust to coordinate their work. We suggest the following
changes.
First, the separate negotiations should be conducted in a coordinated
manner.
Secondly, participation in the steering committee should be raised to the
ministerial level.
Thirdly, the multilateral negotiations should be intensified through more
frequent meetings for longer periods of time.
Fourthly, the Syrians and the Lebanese should participate.
Fifthly, discussion of human rights and pluralistic values should be made
part of the talks so as to combine the discussion of well-defined practical
issues with the pursuit of common values very much akin to the Helsinki
accords.

And finally, the parties should agree not to postpone progress in the
multilateral talks until the conclusion of the bilateral negotiations. Early
planning can save crucial time for all parties without forcing irreversible
commitments. And lost time cannot be regained.
The bilateral negotiations are essentially political. The multilateral
negotiations are essentially economic. We live in an age when financial
assistance in itself is no longer the answer to the economic needs of the
Middle East. In the past, belligerency created dependence upon the financial
assistance of other nations. By diminishing the need for arms and building
the right economic structure, we will be able create wealth of our own. There
is no need to impoverish the wealthy in order to enrich the poor. Opening
borders, paving roads, introducing modern communications, and exchanging
technology will generate economic growth in the Middle East.
Trade across borders is essential for economic growth. Markets transcend
national boundaries. Water, tourism and commerce do not subjugate themselves
to political maps. The Middle East should follow the example of the "seven
tigers" in Asia, the European Common Market and the North American Free Trade
Agreement. Let us understand: these regions are our competitors and they are
far ahead of the Middle East in facing the new realities of the international
economy. We have to build an open regional economy, for the same reasons and
with the same promise that led others to do so. We have to build a common
market in the Middle East.

We have to set out upon the long and complicated road to arms control.
That we can learn from the East-West negotiations and other attempts at arms
control. We have to follow the patient path of confidence-building measures
in the geographical and technical domains until we are able to rid the Middle
East of the terror presented by weapons of mass destruction, both conventional
and non-conventional. Israel has proposed the creation of a nuclear-free zone
in the Middle East numerous times, and we stand ready to pursue this goal
today.
We should address the problems of refugees, not by threatening to destroy
the existing demographic balance, but by exploring a range of possibilities
for restoring the dignity of refugees and offering them a new life.
We should act to save our fresh air and historic landscape. Ecological
pollution does not respect borders, and so we have to marshal forces to save
our region from the danger of uncontrolled deterioration.
Finally, the Middle East possesses vast desert land but meagre water
resources. The land is static, the population is increasing and water
resources are declining. Available water should be reused, and new fresh
water produced from the sea. Either the land will be salinized by the sea or
the sea water will be desalinized through available technology. The
technology is available, and the necessary credit is attainable. We can
satisfy the needs of man and land. The Middle East can be made green. It
depends upon us.
Here, I believe, are the pillars of wisdom for a new Middle East:
economic growth, arms control, dignity for the refugees, environmental
protection and water resources, coupled with religious freedom, pluralistic
values and human rights. The nations of the Middle East must work
individually and collectively to meet these challenges of a changed world.

The agenda is ambitious. Is it merely a dream? No. It is a blueprint,
and the necessary elements are within our grasp. Will these goals be achieved
in our lifetime? We dare not hesitate, because the world will not wait for
the Middle East. We are tragically late in making peace. If we do not face
our economic challenges, we will be left hopelessly far behind.
The agenda is new. The vision was already mentioned in Proverbs:
"Wisdom builds the house.
"Good judgment makes it secure." (The Holy Bible. Proverbs 24:3)
"Wisdom prevails over strength; knowledge over brute force." (The Holy
Bible. Proverbs 24:5)
We have to go to work. For us, the Jewish people, this is Rosh Hashanah,
the New Year. We pray that the year to come will bring peace, freedom and
prosperity to build a new Middle East for all of its people Muslim,
Christian, Jewish, Arab, Israeli for us, and for our children.


In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall
fell and the cold war came to an end, there were 159 Member States represented
in this Hall. Today, three years later, there are 179, an increase of 20.
Will this trend continue? If so, there could be 200 Member States represented
in this Hall when we meet here again in 1995. Will these new countries come
from Africa, Asia, Europe or the Americas? And will the birth pangs of these
new States be as traumatic as those of some our newer Members, like Croatia,
Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Georgia? Or will they emerge
peacefully?
I begin my statement with these questions because I believe that our
first task at this session is to rid ourselves of the euphoria that many of us
here experienced when the cold war ended. From the tragic experience of
Kuwait to the continuing anguish of the former Yugoslavs, we are seeing the
re-emergence of forces that we thought had been swept away by forces of
modernization. Ghosts which had been sleeping for decades have awakened to
haunt us. How many more will awaken in the years to come?
This session clearly needs to be one of sober reflection. In this regard
I am pleased that we have elected Ambassador Ganev of Bulgaria to guide our
deliberations. This reflects the confidence of Member States in his
leadership abilities. Bulgaria's geographical location gives it a unique
insight into the problems that we are facing.
I should also like to place on record our appreciation of the wise
leadership and guidance provided by our President's predecessor,
Ambassador Samir Shihabi. In addition, we wish to place on record our
appreciation to Mr. Perez de Cuellar for his 10 years of dedicated and
exemplary service as Secretary-General. Let me also congratulate

Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali on his wise and dynamic stewardship of the United
Nations in his first year in office.
There can no longer be any doubt that the cold war, even though it
terrified many of us in this Hall, effectively froze or suppressed many
tribal, religious, ethnic and cultural divisions. The thawing of the cold war
has led to their re-emergence. I need only to cite some obvious recent
examples. Even as we speak, conflicts are raging between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, and there are conflicts in Moldova, Georgia
and Afghanistan. Somalia is splintering; the former Yugoslavia has descended
into tribal warfare. The world has still not recovered from the shock of the
atrocities and the blatant disregard of basic humanitarian principles in
Bosnia and Herzegovina in the name of "ethnic cleansing", which we condemn as
an abhorrent practice.
In this setting it is appropriate and timely that the Secretary-General
has produced his report "An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking and peace-keeping" (A/47/277). Not every United Nations Member
will agree with its analysis. Nor will all the recommendations be universally
endorsed. But it is a far-reaching document with concrete proposals for the
maintenance of international peace and security.

It also contains the Secretary-General's recommendations on ways to strengthen
and make more efficient the capacity of the United Nations for preventive
diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building. We should
congratulate the Secretary-General and his staff on putting together a
comprehensive and thoughtful paper that raises the issues that Member States
need to address.
There is much in there for us to ruminate on but there is also room for
us to add ideas to it. For example, the report, for obvious reasons, refrains
from trying to apportion blame or investigate the causes of the recent
conflicts. This should be the job of Member States. We need to be clear in
our minds whether the explosion of new States in recent years is a natural and
welcome development, something akin to what we saw in the era of
decolonization, or whether it is a reflection of a state of disorder in the
structures of human society that we have created in the twentieth century. Or
is it the case, as the "Agenda for Peace" suggests, that the "deepest causes
of conflict" are: "economic despair, social injustice and political
oppression" (A/47/277, para. 15)? We need to be clear in our minds about what
is happening because this will in turn define the mission that we will entrust
to the United Nations: when a conflict breaks out within a State should the
mission of the United Nations be to resolve the conflict and peacefully
reunite the factions as in Angola and El Salvador or should the mission of
the United Nations be to facilitate a peaceful division of the country as in
Yugoslavia? These are not theoretical questions. These are practical
questions that United Nations peace-keepers confront on a day-to-day basis in
the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me stress that I welcome the new Member
States that have joined the United Nations this year: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic
of Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. I
believe that they would agree with me that if more new Member States are going
to join us we should ensure that they emerge peacefully and not through war
and conflict.
The "Agenda for Peace" also makes it clear that the functions of United
Nations peace-keepers have gone far beyond their usual mandate. In the past
United Nations peace-keepers were traditionally sent in after a peace
agreement had been worked out between the warring parties. Today United
Nations forces are involved in a variety of tasks ranging from
election-monitoring to inspection of nuclear installations. The range of
functions is expected to increase. As the "Agenda for Peace" points out,
these will include preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and
peace-building.
Let me also state the points of agreement that I have with the report.
First, I agree that the United Nations should play a more proactive role in
preventive diplomacy. As the report states:
"... preventive diplomacy requires measures to create confidence; it
needs early warning based on information gathering and informal or formal
fact-finding; it may also involve preventive deployment and, in some
situations, demilitarized zones." (A/47/277, para. 23)
Secondly, I also agree that the Security Council can now play a more active
role because, as the report states:
"With greater unity has come leverage and persuasive power to lead
hostile parties towards negotiations." (A/47/277, para. 35)

Thirdly, I agree that the United Nations should work in concert with regional
groupings. I believe that the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
would be happy to do so. The endorsement by the United Nations of the Treaty
of Amity and Cooperation, signed in Bali, Indonesia, in 1976 and recently
acceded to by Laos and Viet Nam, could make it a model for other regions to
emulate.
Having imposed these significant new burdens on the United Nations it is
absurd that Member States, especially the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, are depriving the United Nations of the funds needed
to carry out these operations. Unpaid arrears for United Nations
peace-keeping operations now amount to $800 million. They are likely to rise
as the cost of peace-keeping operations for this year alone is likely to reach
$3 billion.
Some of the biggest debtors of the United Nations come from countries of
the North. It would be tragic for countries of the North to assume that they
are immune from the political and economic travails of the South. Yugoslavia
has demonstrated that these problems can explode at their doorsteps. The
modern technology spun by the developed countries has made our world into a
global village in the truest sense of the word. No villager can ignore a fire
in the home of his fellow villager, for if he does his own home could be burnt.
We saw this clearly at the Rio de Janeiro Summit earlier this year. The
countries of the North called upon the countries of the South to restrain
their deforestation, their production of chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and their
pollutive development, for they were concerned that the effects of these
activities in the South would wander into their homes. Yet while they expect
the relatively impoverished countries of the South to make valiant sacrifices,

they are not prepared to make equal sacrifices in their relatively affluent
lifestyles. Given these difficulties, it is remarkable that the Rio Summit
reached a consensus on Agenda 21. We in the General Assembly should endorse
the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 and adopt a good decision to establish a
high-level commission on sustainable development. The momentum achieved in
Rio de Janeiro has to be maintained and followed up.
To address these environmental questions squarely, the world also needs
to reinvigorate the global economy. We must convince the countries of the
North that if they want the South to pay greater heed to their concerns on the
global environment, they must in turn push the global economy forward by
successfully completing the Uruguay Round as soon as possible. Instead of
doing this, the countries of the North are concentrating on regional
integration. Whatever the fate of the Maastricht Treaty, an integrated single
European market will be in place by January 1993, bolstered by an expanded
agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries that would
bring about greater European Community-EFTA economic co-operation known as the
European Economic Area (EEA). The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) is
about to be formed. If these arrangements benefit only the countries of the
North, with no perceived benefits to the South, the South is unlikely to
cooperate with the North on environmental issues.
Fortunately, the South has not been standing still. A major economic
revolution is also taking place there, affecting the lives of billions of
people, especially in large nations such as China, India, Pakistan and
Indonesia. If present trends continue, by the year 2000 the ASEAN countries
and the Asian newly industrializing economies will have a gross domestic

product (GDP) of $3.3 trillion, two thirds of the United States 1990 GDP or
half of the European Community 1990 GDP. China could double its gross
national product (GNP) within this decade. Clearly, some parts of the South
are going to experience explosive economic growth.
Except for a few which still cling to the virtues of the command economy,
practically every country in the world now realizes that it has to introduce
economic reforms. The old economic systems with their manifest inefficiencies
and inadequacies that hindered economic growth had to be discarded. Except
for a few, all States are working to introduce the market-economy system. But
such adjustment to open economic competition is not without sacrifices and
great political costs. The transitional economies have experienced great
economic difficulties and dislocations in their initial periods of
adjustment. The North should see that it is in its interest to help these
countries by fighting protectionism. With such support, the developing
countries should be able to pull off this economic transition successfully.

If this massive economic revolution in the South succeeds, the world will
experience a rising tide that will lift all of humankind those in the South
and those in the North. It is also likely that this rising tide would help
extinguish the flames of tribal and ethnic discord that have erupted around
the globe.
South-East Asia has sometimes been called "the Balkans of Asia". Despite
this, the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
have already experienced two decades of peace and economic development.
Through regional cooperation in ASEAN and the concentration of national
energies on economic development, the ASEAN region has become the most
peaceful and prosperous part of the third world. There is no reason why this
ASEAN experience cannot be duplicated in the rest of the world. I hope that
this session of the General Assembly will give some thought to this as it
searches for solutions to the ongoing tragedies we are now witnessing.


I wish
to convey to Mr. Ganev the most sincere congratulations of the Government of
Honduras on his well-deserved election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its forty-seventh session. Through him we should also like to
extend our best wishes to the Bulgarian people, who, like other peoples of
Eastern Europe, are today, after much effort and self-sacrifice, helping to
keep alive the flame of freedom, democracy and progress in that continent.
To the new Members of our Organization, we extend a most cordial
greeting. We are fully convinced that through the United Nations we shall be
able to establish growing links of friendship and cooperation.
Our Organization is grounded on principles of equality, shared
responsibilities, and the promotion of international peace and security. We
hope that Serbia and Montenegro will best achieve those objectives by meeting
the legitimate expectations of the international community that an end will be
put to the war, persecution and intolerance in the countries of former
Yugoslavia, and that they will be able to become Members of this great family
of nations.
Moreover, in a world of changing realities, one which is none the less
marked by its attachment to universality and peaceful coexistence, my
Government, like other Central American countries, believes that we should
open the way for the Republic of China, with more than 20 million inhabitants
and authorities established in Taipei, to participate in the work of our
Organization and its specialized agencies as that country does in various
regional forums and international mechanisms. Membership in the United
Nations does not constitute diplomatic recognition of sovereignty, and there
have been and are precedents in the history of the United Nations for the
simultaneous presence of countries which are in search of their historical

unity but which, while they remain separated, have not been denied the
opportunity to make their contribution to the complex fabric of international
relations and obligations which bring together the peoples of the Earth
through the United Nations.
We are beginning a new era in the life of this Organization. For us, the
"Agenda for Peace" of our distinguished Secretary-General is a noteworthy
effort embodying both vision and realism that will enable us to make progress
in forging a more secure and prosperous world. The Government of Honduras
warmly supports the proposals on preventive diplomacy and on strengthening the
logistical and financial capacity of the United Nations for peace-keeping and
for peace-building when peace is threatened, when peace has been breached, or
when the persistence of situations of confrontation make peace vulnerable.
In accordance with those aims, Honduras also urges greater support for
and use of the international organs for the legal settlement of disputes such
as the International Court of Justice, which has only recently handed down a
judgment providing a definitive solution to a long-standing border dispute
between El Salvador and Honduras. The peoples and Governments of both
countries intend to comply in good faith with this judgement.
Honduras has also decided to lend its armed forces and police for
peace-keeping missions and is at present satisfactorily participating in the
conciliation mission in Western Sahara of the United Nations Mission for the
Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).
With the end of a bipolar world and of the cold war, the terrible threat
of a nuclear holocaust has dissipated. However, atomic weapons and other
powerful weapons of mass destruction continue to overfill the arsenals of
large and medium-sized Powers. My country therefore urges those who possess
nuclear weapons to pursue, and as appropriate to initiate, serious and

verifiable programmes for the reduction and destruction of such weapons, and
the dismantling of possible vehicles for them. We also urge that the
non-proliferation Treaty system be made more general and strengthened, with
guarantees of verification; this applies also to the regional systems such as
the Treaty of Tlatelolco. We shall also join in the broad movement that is
being generated at this session towards seeking and achieving the prohibition
of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
In the Persian Gulf, the reasons for the vigorous response by the
international community in defence of the sovereignty and legitimate rights of
Kuwait still exist in several respects. More than ever before, the United
Nations should redouble its efforts to bring about faithful compliance with
the relevant resolutions of the Security Council ensuring an end to threats of
aggression and guaranteeing for the countries of the Gulf an environment of
peace and a future free of coercion and uncertainty.
In the Middle East, in southern Africa and in Cambodia, processes of
peace and reconciliation continue to move forward. Candidly acknowledging
past injustices, trusting in the mediating efforts of the United Nations, and
convinced that the fruits of peace are beneficial to their populations, the
leaders of all the parties involved in these conflicts should now more than
ever before strive to bring about equitable solutions to the differences that
separate them, in order to guarantee a speedy restoration in their respective
regions of stable and secure conditions of good neighbourliness.
The signing of the Chapultepec Peace Agreements in January this year
between the Government of El Salvador and representatives from the insurgent
The President returned to the Chair.

movement has brought an end to armed confrontation in our neighbouring country
and has opened the way for a complete reconciliation in the spirit of freedom
and democracy for the Salvadorian people. Honduras associated itself in the
well-deserved tribute paid to former Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar
for his mediating efforts. We have given and shall continue to give our full
support to Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the fulfilment of the
various stages of the peace agreement, including demobilization of formerly
opposed forces and integration into civil and political life of the insurgents
in a framework of complete legality.
With peace in El Salvador, Central America, under the sign of democracy,
is returning to the path of integration and development. Our countries are
aware of the countless challenges posed by the insufficiency of our productive
infrastructure, poverty and inequalities. But we also know that with
dedication and vision, and especially with unity, we shall be able to overcome
them.
That is why the Tegucigalpa Protocol (A/46/829, annex III) of
13 December 1991 has entered into force, establishing a system for Central
America integration which, working in the summit meetings of Presidents of the
Central American isthmus, will impart force and impetus to a broad movement
towards integration. Honduras hopes that the ever-stronger voice of Central
America will be heard and that our region, a region of peace, democracy,
freedom and development, will join and participate actively in the new forms
of global interdependence that are taking shape on the eve of a new millennium.

For Honduras, an essential part of this integrated vision is the
formation and implementation of national, regional and international
strategies to fight poverty and to overcome long-standing problems that strike
hardest at children, women and the elderly.
If we justly aspire to economic development, and to growing expansion of
trade in goods and services originating from all continents, we should
likewise aspire to, and indeed make possible, real improvement in the quality
of life of the inhabitants of our countries. Enhanced social well being
should not be conceived of as a generous remedy that may prove insufficient to
the communities receiving it, but rather as a joint undertaking to facilitate,
through international cooperation, conditions for vocational training and
better access to the opportunities that can be provided by open and growing
economies.
On 12 December 1991, in Central America, the Heads of State and
Government of the seven countries of the isthmus assumed that very commitment,
and, in the presence of various distinguished figures and executives of the
United Nations and regional organizations, initiated a coordinated programme
of human development with goals, objectives and resources defined for the
present decade to culminate in the year 2000.
Those initiatives of our subregion are universal in conception. That is
why Honduras, like Chile and other friendly countries, will continue to give
impetus to, and participate in, the appropriate preparations for and holding
of a world conference on social and human development that may serve as a
forum for reflection and initiatives to effectively set in motion
international measures and policies in this respect.
In an ever more integrated world, our countries, which share not only a
rich cultural heritage exemplified by the common use of a single language, but

also a democratic and modern vision of international relations, are naturally
seeking to strengthen our links of fraternal friendship and our presence in
the world. Those are the fundamental reasons that led us to constitute the
Ibero-American Conference, which, following its founding declaration in
Guadalajara, signed in July 1991 by the Heads of State and Government of the
Hispanic-American countries, Brazil, Spain and Portugal, has now formally been
constituted.
Within the Ibero-American Conference, as a mechanism for interaction and
cooperation, we have been designing programmes of mutual benefit primarily in
the fields of education, exchanges of programmes via satellite, the creation
of an indigenous fund and the launching of a broad programme of exchanges of
scholars and researchers.
The Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Madrid this year also
gave support to growing and leading involvement by our countries in a world
programme of human development.
Maintenance of an open multilateral trading system is of vital importance
to the expansion of world trade and the economic development of all
countries. For that reason we must join our efforts to bring about the speedy
culmination, on satisfactory terms, of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade
Negotiations. Stagnation of the negotiating process would have very serious
consequences for world trade and would affect prospects and the structural
programmes that many developing countries have undertaken at the cost of great
sacrifice to find our proper place in the trend towards large trading blocs.
This year there has been a dramatic fall in the prices of commodities
essential to our economies. This leads us to stress the need to bring about
better regulation of conditions of access guaranteeing the growth of sales of
our competitive products at fair prices.

In this context we must also, in our judgement, strengthen the transfer
of technology for industrial development and more flexible terms in financing
the modernization of industrial plant in developing countries.
The urgent need to share responsibilities and to act together to
guarantee global economic stability independently of the economic and
political power of each nation, together with the growing convergence of views
as to global priorities, were clearly and positively demonstrated at the Earth
Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.
The Government of Honduras takes great satisfaction from the common
reflection on urgent environmental problems initiated at that conference, and
we reiterate our support for the principles adopted by it and for Agenda 21,
which comprehensively encompasses a whole programme of action in the
environmental sphere and for sustainable development.
We must persevere in this direction. The deterioration of nature must be
halted. Together we can design conservation strategies that allow for the
rational use of natural resources to meet the needs of employment and the
economic growth of our populations.
The new strategy of peace is also necessarily a new strategy of
development. Only by growing together can we survive; only by pooling our
efforts can we secure for future generations a better world in harmony and
concord.


We grieved
to learn of the aviation disaster yesterday in Lagos, which caused the death
of 163 members of the Nigerian military. On this sad occasion I should like
to convey to the people and the Government of Nigeria our most sincere
condolences.
First Sir, on behalf of the delegation of Cote d'Ivoire I congratulate
you on your election as President of the current session of the General
Assembly. The confidence expressed in you by the Assembly is recognition both
of you personally and your professionalism and of the important role played by
your country in the achievement of the noble objectives of our Organization.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to your
predecessor, Mr. Samir Shihabi, who discharged his responsibilities as
President of the forty-sixth session of the General Assembly with such talent
and dignity.
Finally, I should not forget our Secretary-General,
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to whom I should like to address our most sincere
congratulations on the vitality and ability he has demonstrated in the
management of our Organization. His report, which provides an exhaustive view
of the activities of the Organization, enables us to take up our debate with
specific, current information.
We most warmly welcome all those States that have just joined the
Organization, thus highlighting its universality.
Events in recent years have caused serious upheavals in international
relations. The division of the world into two rival blocs is a thing of the
past. The trend towards negotiation and emerging cooperation is the prelude
to a new world order that has yet to take shape. Situations and certainties,
which had in the past seemed immutable are changing, slowly but surely. We
are currently witnessing political, economic, social and cultural
transformations. We hope these developments, which seem to augur new
international relations, will make it possible to meet the challenges of today.
The have-nots of the world greeted with great hope the end of the cold
war, and with the end of the arms race looked to the future sure that the
world was moving towards peace, justice and solidarity.
Unfortunately, while solidarity should have been strengthened,
selfishness and the defence of short-term interests have intensified, to the
detriment of cooperation for the mutual benefit of the various partners in
international relations.
Today the developed countries and the major economic, monetary and
financial institutions have found it necessary to link their assistance to the
establishment of what they consider to be democracy in the recipient
countries, for which it is now a matter of linking the grant of external
financial resources not merely to an economic reform programme based on the
rules of the market, but also to respect for political pluralism.
Regrettably, on the world scale, there is no longer a strategic or
economic alternative that might counter this approach.
If democracy is taken to mean more justice and increased popular
participation in the management of a country's affairs, the Ivorian Government
can be proud of its record.
Indeed, the first version of the Constitution of Cote d'Ivoire, which has
been in effect since independence, provides for a multiparty system, in its
articles 6 and 7.
In Cote d'Ivoire, the idea of democracy has always been part and parcel
of the political process. Democracy and human rights have no borders. They
are universal values, which should nevertheless have national roots. They
cannot be imported, sold or bought, neither can they be imposed from outside.
In international terms, this democratic process should logically entail
greater involvement by States, be they large, small or medium-sized, in the
consideration and solving of international problems of common interest.
Therefore, it is not enough that the United Nations should become more
universal merely within the General Assembly. This trend must also be
reflected in the other principal organs if the Organization's democratic
nature is to be enhanced.
In spite of the progress achieved in various fields, an overview of the
map of the world indicates that the international landscape is still covered
by large grey areas of real and potential conflict. The stability of States
is shaken by violent religious, social, cultural and linguistic struggles, as
well as by unusually grave economic problems.
The countries of the South in general, and African countries in
particular, with their scores of refugees, are still prey to conflicts that
seriously jeopardize the peace and security that are essential for their
development.
In South Africa, while we welcome the considerable progress achieved in
dismantling apartheid, we are saddened by the escalation of violence. In this
regard, we must appeal most urgently to all our South African brothers to put
an end to the violence, massacres and abuses of all types that continue to
cast a pall over the country and further to complicate the already difficult
and complex task of those who are striving to build in South Africa a
democratic, non-racial system through dialogue and negotiation. We welcome
the forthcoming meeting between Mr. Nelson Mandela and Mr. Frederik de Klerk,
and we hope that the negotiations under way will lead to a resumption of the
negotiations within the Convention for a Democratic South Africa.
Elsewhere in Africa internal conflicts with tragic consequences are still
causing upheavals in Somalia, Rwanda and Liberia, to name but a few countries.
With regard to a country on our borders Liberia the Committee of
Five, chaired by President Houphouet-Boigny and set up by the fourteenth
session of the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in Abuja on 6 July 1991, met
four times in Yamoussoukro and once in Geneva, in April 1992. The agreement
that emerged from these many meetings, commonly called the Yamoussoukro IV
Agreement, was endorsed by summit meetings of ECOWAS, the Organization of
African Unity and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries as the best framework
for finding a just and lasting solution to the Liberian crisis.
Nevertheless, military aspects of the implementation of the Agreement
have caused difficulties, with regard to the billeting and disarming of the
belligerents, essential steps for the holding of free, fair and democratic
elections.
The appearance of a new faction, the United Liberation Movement for
Democracy in Liberia (ULIMO), on the scene of the Liberian conflict, has
created a new situation of insecurity, increasing the existing distrust
between the parties to the conflict.
We hope that the new consultations under way, initiated by the President
of ECOWAS and the Chairman of the Committee of the Five, will make possible
reconsideration of the problems of Liberia as a whole in order more
effectively to focus on the factors that will enable all the armed factions to
apply in good faith the provisions of the Yamoussoukro IV Agreement.
We urgently appeal to all Liberians to go a step further and to begin a
constructive dialogue that alone can effectively help the international
community to enable them to find a lasting solution to their problems and to
the future of their country. For his part. President Houphouet-Boigny, who has been working tirelessly
for peace in Africa and throughout the world, will fully support the process
begun in order to solve the Liberian crisis so that the fraternal people of
Liberia, to which we are linked by so many bonds, might finally have peace.
In Angola, after 14 years of liberation struggle against the colonizing
Power followed by 16 years of fratricidal struggle. Cote d'Ivoire commends the
signing of the peace agreements which occurred in Lisbon in May 1991.
Cote d'Ivoire most earnestly hopes that the multipartite elections that are to
be held on 29 and 30 September will take place under the best possible
circumstances so as to enable the fraternal people of Angola freely to choose
their officials and fully to concentrate on the enormous task of
reconstruction and development that lies ahead.
In the Middle East, the Israeli-Arab conflict remains a major and
constant source of concern despite the new peace initiatives that emerged from
the historic Madrid meeting.
Hope, however, has been renewed owing to the recent negotiations during
which we noted with satisfaction an encouraging attitude on the part of the
parties to the conflict, which seem determined to move forward with the peace
process.
The situation in the Persian Gulf still remains alarming, and the
possibility of the conflict resuming cannot be ruled out. Hence we shall
continue fully to support, as we did last year during our mandate in the
Security Council, the complete implementation of all resolutions linked to the
Gulf Crisis, especially Security Council resolution 687 (1991), of
3 April 1991, which lays down the conditions for a permanent cease-fire in the
Gulf governing post-war relations between Iraq and Kuwait.

Furthermore, the quest for increased stability in some States is
accompanied by the troubling phenomenon of sometimes violent disintegration in
other States, in Europe and in various areas of the developing world. The
situation in the Balkans and the tragedy of the people of Bosnia and
Herzegovina are a perfect illustration of this.
Confronted with these various situations, we must seek a new approach to
settling conflicts. Quite rightly, we are now stressing once again the need
for preventive diplomacy, which would have the effect of identifying areas of
potential conflict and stemming crises before they degenerate into armed
confrontation.
That is why my country. Cote d'Ivoire, supports the report of the
Secretary-General on strengthening the capacity of the United Nations for
preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. This report has the same
objective as that of the Secretary-General of the Organization of African
Unity (OAU), that is, to create mechanisms for the prevention, management and
settlement of conflicts, the principle of which was adopted during the
twenty-eighth regular session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government
of the OAU, which met in Dakar last July.
The concerns and the worries that we reiterated last year from this very
rostrum, which pertained to signs of a slowdown in world economic activity,
have unfortunately become reality, to the extent that we have seen a real
decline in the growth rate of global production of the world economy in 1991,
accompanied by a concomitant drop in the volume of world trade.
In this regard, we should emphasize the substantial drop in the growth
level of imports of industrialized countries, the major export markets for raw
materials produced by developing countries.

The impact of such a situation on African countries has been
catastrophic, since the recession in the industrialized countries has not only
kept raw-materials prices at very low levels, but has also had the consequence
of reducing the quantities exported, thereby causing a very substantial drop
in the export earnings of African countries.
Nevertheless, in spite of the unfavourable economic environment, African
countries including my own. Cote d'Ivoire, in particular have courageously
continued to pursue efforts undertaken as part of the structural adjustment
process and drastic economic reform, with all that this entails in terms of
the risk of social unrest.
As regards my country, those measures have none the less allowed for the
establishment of macro-economic balances, which means that we might achieve a
5 per cent growth rate by 1995.
However, in order to reduce as soon as possible the social cost of
structural adjustment measures, we must resume the still-unfinished debate on
North-South relations between rich and poor countries, between industrialized
countries and those that do not have the means of paying their debts nor of
relaunching their stricken economies.
In this regard, we should, in the financial sphere, come up with a final
solution to external debt problems that takes into account debtor countries'
actual repayment abilities. This restructuring of external debt should be
supplemented by the granting of substantial financial assistance, on
concessional terms, as was the case with Eastern Europe.
While we are asking developing countries to make ever-greater efforts and
sacrifices, we see from the analysis of recent statements by International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank heads, Messrs. Michel Camdessus and Lewis Preston, that rich countries are the ones setting a bad example in
managing the world economy. These countries, they say, are not conforming to
any budgetary discipline, which ends up costing developing countries dearly.
Those officials also pointed out that only 5 of the 20 richest countries
in the world have devoted 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to
development assistance, in accordance with the objectives set by the United
Nations. Even the International Development Association (IDA) today appears
to be imperilled in that it is not sure that it will be able to obtain the $18
billion considered absolutely necessary for its functioning.
Contrary to this trend, we welcome Japan's decision to hold, in 1993, a
conference on development in Africa.
As President Houphouet-Boigny has often said: "The real problem of
Africa today is above all economic and financial". He also stated, recently
at the OAU Summit in Dakar, that the only difference between developed and
developing countries is that the former have the technological capacity to
process our raw materials into finished products for their own consumption
and to use any surplus for export, while the latter can only export their raw
materials, be they agricultural, mining or mineral products.
Such a situation must change, and to this end, the assistance and
cooperation of our northern partners should no longer restrict us indefinitely
to the role of providers of raw materials but rather enable us, thanks to the
processing of part or all of our raw materials, to also become consumer
countries.
But pending this development, which should not be delayed, we producers
of raw materials, be they agricultural, mining or mineral products, fervently
hope that the markets for the majority of our commodities will be organized

within the framework of appropriate international agreements that would take
into account the best interests of both consumers and producers.
That is why I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal
most earnestly to the States members of the European Economic Community (EEC),
whose constant support for developing countries has been unfailing, to take
determined action, individually and collectively, in order to foster the
forthcoming conclusion of new international agreements, particularly those
relating to coffee and cocoa, negotiations on which are currently under way.

This is also the place to affirm that, contrary to commonly-held views,
we remain convinced, as far as we are concerned, of the ability of
well-written international agreements on commodities to stabilize markets and
thereby to foster the economic growth of countries that produce raw
materials. Indeed, taking into account the overall importance of raw
materials in the economies of developing countries, and in particular the
extreme dependence of some of them on a single product or small number of
products from which they draw their main source of revenue, we think it
perfectly logical to acknowledge that these markets should be organized in
such a way that, while guaranteeing regular supply for industries using these
products, the prices remain stable so as not only to allow for decent earnings
for the processing industries but also to ensure remunerative prices and
predictable earnings for producer countries.
Furthermore, mutatis mutandis, such thinking underlay the idea of the
common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community (EEC), the major
aim of which was to ensure the security of food supplies within the boundaries
of the community at prices that were reasonable for the consumer and both
stable and remunerative for the rural population.
Indeed, no country in the world can remain indifferent to the drop in
income of its peasants. The United States of America and the member States of
the EEC have understood this so well that they spare no subsidy in helping
their farmers keep their purchasing power on a par with their efforts. It is
therefore difficult for us to understand why the same machinery that has
functioned so well internally and regionally in the Western countries cannot
be usefully adapted internationally within the framework of raw materials in
the relationship between North and South.

Taking all this into consideration, it is perfectly obvious that only the
conclusion of international agreements aimed at promoting stability in the
rates of raw materials at remunerative prices would foster the implementation
of production policies guaranteeing the preservation of the environment. In
this context, it is good that the Rio Conference emphasized the close link
that exists between the deterioration of the environment, indebtedness, and
the deterioration in the terms of trade. Indeed, Cote d'Ivoire, like many
other countries, has had to intensify the exploitation of its natural
resources in order to honour its international financial obligations.
This situation is not in the interests of sustainable development. For
that, as agreed in Rio, the industrialized countries must, as a matter of
urgency, take the necessary steps to help in the transition of our economies
towards sustainable development, especially in implementing decisions aimed at
the elimination of obstacles in the trade of raw or processed goods and the
transfer of new and additional financial resources to developing countries.
In this regard. Agenda 21 has highlighted several ways to achieve the
objectives with regard to the transfer of resources through the following
machinery: through the special increase of resources in the form of the
"Earth Increment" in the World Bank; through the global environmental facility
that will meet next December in Abidjan and whose objective is to increase its
resources from $1.1 billion to $4.5 billion; and through debt alleviation,
especially for middle-income countries.
It is also worth noting that in Rio, several countries promised to
increase their transfer of resources to developing countries, committing
themselves to achieve 1 per cent of their gross national product to official
development assistance by the year 2000. Some of them have announced special
contributions. By way of example, I cite the EEC, which hopes to reach

$4 billion, and Japan, which hopes to reach $8 billion in three years. We can
only express our sincere gratitude for these fortunate initiatives, just as we
commend those countries that have committed themselves to making contributions
during the current session of the General Assembly.
Our hopes are placed in the Commission on Sustainable Development that is
to meet at the ministerial level; its work will be decisive in following up on
the implementation of Agenda 21 programmes and their integration. In this
context, and on behalf of my delegation, I would like to offer my sincere
congratulations to Mr. Maurice Strong for his magnificent work and to ask him
to be kind enough to guide the first steps of the secretariat of that
Commission, because in our view that is essential in order to guarantee the
effective implementation and proficient and speedy follow-up of the
commitments made in Rio.
As regards the critical economic situation in Africa, we remain confident
of the ability of the international community to mobilize itself in the
effective support of the efforts of the African countries to realize the aims
of the new United Nations agenda for the development of Africa for the 1990s
adopted by the General Assembly in December 1991. The elements of this new
agenda, dealing with the last decade of the twentieth century, constitute a
major challenge that Africa must meet with success if it is not to be
irredeemably marginalized at the dawn of the twenty-first century, so full of
promise for humanity.
That is why the African countries, aware of the importance of the current
and future stakes, as well as of their primary responsibility in achieving
growth and sustainable development, have firmly committed themselves to
regional integration and to accelerating the democratization process of their
internal institutions.

That is why is it is important that conditions for growth and development
in Africa be achieved as soon as possible, because they are quite obviously
the sine qua non for the true and realistic exercise of the democracy that
cements peace within African States, peace among African States, and peace
between Africa and the rest of the world.
As President Houphouet-Boigny often says: "Peace and poverty make poor
bedfellows." That is why we exhort the international community to show more
understanding for the question of remunerative prices for raw materials, upon
which many developing countries depend, especially in Africa. Africa needs to
be considered by the rest of the world as a partner rather than a burden. The
partnership it seeks implies dignity rather than dependency, mutual interests
rather than charity.
The bipolar world that has held sway in the international order since
1945 has crumbled. Since the time of Alexander of Macedonia, great empires
have arisen only to collapse in a process that has been broadly described by
Professor Paul Kennedy in his Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
Every century brings its share of innovations and surprises. The
twentieth century which is now drawing to a close has brought great changes to
human existence. It has seen people invent all sorts of instruments to
advance thought, to cure as well as to kill. Today's world seems to have
found unity through a certain number of values, among which is the primacy of
law in international relations. Such a development can only strengthen the
role of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace.
It is thus up to every State to support the activity of our Organization
in order to enable it to carry out its difficult task effectively. My
country, which has always made a determined search for peace the cornerstone
of its foreign policy, will not fail to make its contribution to the building
of this noble enterprise and to the shaping of the new world order which is
emerging and which, to be solid and lasting, must be linked to the search for
a world of peace, justice, and shared well-being.