INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY UNWILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE CRISIS IN SOMALIA, PRESIDENT OF DJIBOUTI TELLS ASSEMBLY AS GENERAL DEBATE CONTINUES

Press Release
GA/9602

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY UNWILLING TO ACKNOWLEDGE CRISIS IN SOMALIA, PRESIDENT OF DJIBOUTI TELLS ASSEMBLY AS GENERAL DEBATE CONTINUES

The Somalian crisis was a tragedy that the international community was unwilling to acknowledge, Ismail Omar Guelleh, President of Djibouti, told the General Assembly this afternoon as it continued its general debate.

He said that because of indifference and the lack of vigorous and visionary action, Somalia was falling apart. Continued anarchy there was indicative of the failure of global governance to serve poor countries. Regional organizations, with the support of the United Nations and other countries, should redress the situation by all necessary means.

A number of speakers this afternoon also drew attention to inequities in the current global free trade system. Frederick J.T. Chiluba, President of Zambia, said the most important issue was the creation of conditions to enable Africa to trade with the international community on terms acceptable to all. "Justice must prevail in our economic relations in order to lay the foundation for political and social justice", he stressed. A start would be to review the inequitable conditions imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which, if maintained, would ensure the continued marginalization of third world countries.

Denzil Douglas, Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, said the WTO was expected to play a key role in trade liberalization. That body, however, was not a panacea for world trade. No new rules could alter the fact that in most areas of exports, developed countries would have an advantage over developing ones. "Our position is that a world economic order predicated upon open economies works best with countries whose economies are roughly equal", he said. The United Nations was capable of studying the issue objectively and making recommendations to remedy what could be a potential disaster for small vulnerable economies.

Sartaj Aziz, Foreign Minister of Pakistan, said the world must demand that India halt its repression of the Kashmiri people. The risk of a wider conflict in a nuclear environment presented a serious danger to peace and security in South Asia and the world. Confronted by an aggressive nuclear India, Pakistan had been obliged to demonstrate its nuclear capability. His country's hopes for restraint had been shattered by India's "nuclear doctrine". Even the Indian "offer" of non- first use of nuclear weapons was designed to gain its acceptance as a nuclear- weapon State, he said. To preserve deterrence, Pakistan would be compelled to enhance its nuclear and missile capabilities.

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9602 9th Meeting (PM) 22 September 1999

Jaswant Singh, Minister for External Affairs of India, said his country had been subjected to yet another act of premeditated aggression. In self-defence, India had taken all necessary steps to evict aggressor forces from its territory. Regrettably, that premeditated aggression had set back the Lahore peace process. The territory of trust which had been transgressed was difficult to restore. The act of aggression had been, among other things, a manifestation of the larger disorders that the world had been witnessing in Afghanistan.

Statements were also made by the Presidents of Costa Rica, Suriname and the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Foreign Ministers of Greece, Denmark, Turkmenistan and the Czech Republic.

Statements in exercise of the right of reply were also made by the representative of Pakistan.

The Assembly will continue its general debate at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Assembly Work Programme

As the General Assembly continued its general debate this afternoon, the Presidents of Djibouti, Costa Rica, Suriname, Micronesia and Zambia, as well as the Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis were expected to address the delegates. The Foreign Ministers of Pakistan, Greece, Denmark, India, Turkmenistan and the Czech Republic also were expected to speak.

Statements

ISMAIL OMAR GUELLEH, President of Djibouti, said the Horn of Africa had witnessed more than its share of wars, natural disasters and economic decline. The least developed countries required special attention. For Djibouti, survival alone had consistently presented an enormous challenge. His country would continue to work for good governance, democratization, freedom and liberty, and observance of human rights. It would also continue to give sanctuary to people displaced in conflicts in the region, despite the severe strain on its meagre resources.

Africa had many hopeful spots, he continued: democratic elections had taken place in two major States of sub-Saharan Africa -- Nigeria and South Africa -- and in smaller ones, including Djibouti. In most of the major conflicts on the continent, some type of ceasefire or peace process was under way. Expressing relief that the brutal conflict in Sierra Leone was at last resolved, he said that now one of the most worrying African conflicts was Angola, where again outside factors appeared to be assuming significant roles. He supported the call of the Secretary-General for the international community to assume political and financial responsibility associated with peacekeeping operations. Nothing, however, absolved Africa of the need to come together to strengthen its own crisis response and peace-building capability, through the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and subregional organizations.

The loss of life in the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea was among the greatest ever witnessed between African States, he said. Persistent efforts by the OAU and countries including Djibouti, had proven elusive. Should the present undeclared ceasefire fail to hold, the potential for destruction and further loss of life would be considerable. Clearly, Eritrea needed to be a good neighbour to all its neighbours. Djibouti was now facing a relentless threat of destabilization through incursions and landmines. A broadening of hostilities had embraced practically every country in the Horn of Africa.

The crisis in Somalia was a tragedy that the international community was unwilling to acknowledge, he continued, for it seemed that there were no vital national interests at stake. Because of the pervasive indifference and lack of vigorous and visionary action, Somalia, falling apart, was no longer a politically viable entity. Continued anarchy in Somalia was indicative of the failure of global governance to serve poor countries in the developing world. The laudable intentions of the United Nations’ intervention in Somalia in 1992 had unfortunately come to a standstill.

Somalia warlords gave no indication that they would ever agree on a lasting settlement, much less the implementation of agreed upon conclusions. They presented potential danger even beyond Somalia. The challenge was to establish an authority to fill the vacuum that was continuously exploited by the warlords. The international community had not intervened in Somalia "to defend humanitarian principles, and to stand up for the values of civilization and justice", as it had

in Kosovo. The time had come for the international community to assume leadership in breaking the long silence on the forgotten conflict in Somalia by supporting bold, decisive measures against the warlords.

He proposed measures to resolve the crisis, which included holding a true reconciliation conference in Somalia. Somalian civil society should take responsibility, he stressed. Warlords must be charged with crimes against humanity and made accountable for their actions. Regional organizations to which Somalia belonged -- principally the OAU and the League of Arab States -- with the support of the United Nations and other countries, should redress the situation using "all necessary means". The premise that no State, or criminal warlords, would be allowed indefinitely to commit gross human rights violations and hold a country hostage forever should be upheld.

MIGUEL ANGEL RODRIGUEZ, President of Costa Rica, said the greatest failure of the United Nations and the international community in recent years had been the persistence of armed conflicts and civil wars. The United Nations must take back leadership in maintaining international peace and security. Costa Rica supported efforts to reform the Security Council, not just by increasing the number of its members -- though that might be appropriate -- but also through its revitalization.

Costa Rica had abolished its army 50 years ago and had consistently advocated disarmament, he said. Eliminating its army had led to Costa Rican society becoming an example of dialogue, respect and peaceful coexistence. He proposed the creation of a fund for the demilitarization of Central America, and called for strengthening of, and full compliance with, the mechanisms of international law.

Any massive violation of human rights or humanitarian emergency required the international community’s coordinated action through the United Nations, he said. Conflicts and crises had political, military and economic aspects. Therefore, the United Nations must not only act to restore peace in military terms, but also in terms of social justice, democracy and development. The Organization must involve not only the Security Council, but also the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Programme for Development (UNDP) in the peace-building process.

A more just and equitable economic order was needed to allow all nations access to the benefits of globalization, he said. To promote the development of small States, commercial schemes must be opened so that trade and investment became engines of economic growth and better employment opportunities. Small economies did not start economic crises, but they suffered most from them. He proposed the creation of a precautionary fund, with a flexible mechanism to address financial emergencies of small and vulnerable States.

Concluding, he said an international system must be built that rewarded those who protected the environment and penalized those who contaminated or destroyed it. Costa Rica was now developing a system of payment for environmental services to the owners of forests. New market models must be used to determine the costs of contamination and the profits of preservation, so that natural resources would be used sustainably. With Norway, Costa Rica had performed the first global transaction of certificates of greenhouse gases reduction. That mechanism should receive the support of all countries. If more open trade schemes were not implemented, if developed countries’ protectionism were not reduced and if the global benefits of the planet’s forests were not recognized, poverty would worsen, political stability and peace would be threatened, and natural resources would degenerate. Solidarity and fraternity were needed among all States.

JULES ALBERT WIJDENBOSCH, President of Suriname, said the international community had a moral obligation to ensure that the negative influences of globalization were contained and the benefits were shared among all nations. It should also guarantee special and differential treatment to small and developing countries in the international, financial, monetary and trading systems in order to help those countries successfully adjust to the demands of globalization.

The recent large-scale military intervention in a certain part of the world was cause for concern, the President said. Such intervention not only weakened the effectiveness of the United Nations and the Security Council, but could also be considered a violation of international law. Nations could not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations without the consent of the Security Council, as mandated by the Charter. While he agreed that the brutal policy of ethnic cleansing warranted seeking the intervention of the Security Council, only a decision by that organ would persuade Suriname to consider, for the sake of international peace and security, a departure from the principle of national sovereignty with respect to domestic affairs.

The United Nations and the Security Council must be enabled to act swiftly to end any threat to international, regional and subregional security, he said. The rise in the number of violent conflicts within and between States due to the indiscriminate use of conventional weapons should be a primary consideration. Restructuring and reform of the Security Council should enhance its capacity to assist nations in achieving greater security. The elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, remained the highest priority for all peace-loving nations. He deplored the fact that the Conference on Disarmament, for the third year in a row, had not been able to reach a consensus on holding a special Assembly session on disarmament.

The President said that traffic in illegal drugs had become a serious threat to the national security of many nations, particularly small and vulnerable ones. Drug trafficking promoted violence, corruption, money laundering and illegal arms trafficking, which could be viewed as interference by some countries in the internal affairs of others. Given its limited resources, Suriname found it practically impossible to combat this scourge on its own. It was, therefore, actively seeking bilateral agreements with friendly nations.

Finally, the President said that effective democratic structures were fundamental for a satisfactory enjoyment of democracy. On 25 May 2000, the Surinamese people would appoint a national government through free elections. As his Government prepared for this election, he acknowledged the support of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations as well as other international organizations. Talks on possible financial support from the European Union were also near conclusion. The pimary goal of his Government was to hold, with the greatest possible care, general and free elections by secret ballot.

LEO A. FALCAM, President of the Federated States of Micronesia, speaking on behalf of the South Pacific Forum, reviewed efforts to assist small island developing States in their pursuit of sustainable development. Proposals for extensive economic reforms had been made by the Forum Economic Ministers. They had recommended trade initiatives, including the establishment of a Pacific free trade area. Forum leaders strongly supported the holding of next week’s special Assembly session to review progress under the Barbados Programme of Action.

Countries of the Forum had a keen interest in the United Nations’ adoption of a vulnerability index, he said. Work had already begun on an environmental vulnerability index for the South Pacific region. Only by taking into account social, economic and environmental factors would the international community be able to address equitably the special circumstances of small island developing States; existing criteria were purely macroeconomic. The Forum was also relieved that its members particular needs in connection with climate change had been recognized.

He said that another topic of concern was the industrial Powers’ continued shipment, through his region, of plutonium and radioactive waste. He was encouraged by recent discussions between the Forum countries and France, Japan and the United Kingdom; he strongly urged those shipping States to demonstrate their readiness to explore "innovative ways" to address the Forum's concerns. Since time immemorial, the developed nations had regarded the Pacific region as a convenient area for any kind of dangerous or undesirable activity that served their interests at home. However, the countries of the region were now numerous enough in the United Nations to assert forcefully that they wished to have no further invasions that placed their people at risk.

Since its admission to the Organization in 1991, his country had fully integrated the principle of sustainability into its daily life, he continued. Pacific Islanders were custodians of some of the world's greatest untapped wealth and, in time, would play a greater role in meeting the needs of the rest of the world for food and mineral resources. If those resources were to be conserved in a proper way, the peoples of the Pacific Islands must be dealt with fairly and on a basis of partnership with the developed world.

He called for developing countries to be more fully incorporated in the decision-making process at the United Nations. As the trend towards globalization continued, the United Nations needed to make important decisions "not as Perm-5, not as G-7, but as G-188", he said. Also, oceans and seas presented a crucial area for international cooperation and coordination. The Assembly was the appropriate body to provide oversight, as mandated by Agenda 21, the programme of action adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and the Law of the Sea Convention.

FREDERICK J.T. CHILUBA, President of Zambia, said that the growth in the Organization's membership should have been accompanied by a corresponding measure of reform of the decision-making structures and processes of the United Nations. It was disappointing that while reform of the administrative structures had been accomplished, reform of the Security Council had not moved in tandem. He also expressed concern about the continued deterioration of the financial situation of the United Nations. Reform of the Organization could not be implemented effectively if the financial situation were not seriously addressed. The payment of assessed contributions in full, on time and without conditions would enable the United Nations to function smoothly and execute the mandate with which it had been entrusted.

African countries wanted to build strong economies, but external debt was both a burden and a major impediment to development, he said. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative was not sufficient to resolve the external debt problem of developing countries unless translated into tangible and practical economic development programmes. His Government felt that the debt relief target of the G-8 Group of industrialized countries of about $100 billion for the poorest countries in the world, would have little effect on the problem unless the terms of the HIPC were further revised to make them more flexible and tailored to the specific conditions of the targeted countries.

The spread of HIV/AIDS, the President said, continued to overwhelm the African continent, robbing it of its material and financial resources through devastation of its active population. It was necessary for all humanity to regard HIV/AIDS as a global problem and act in unison. From 12 to 16 September, Zambia hosted the Eleventh International Conference on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Africa. He hoped the United Nations would embrace the outcome of the conference and provide the necessary leadership in the fight against the pandemic which threatened the very survival of humankind.

Turning to the conflicts in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he said the unfortunate state of affairs in Angola was occasioned by the intransigence of the National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola (UNITA) to the implementation of the remaining tasks of the Lusaka Protocol. Every effort should be made to end the hostilities, he stressed. For peace to prevail in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he appealed to the Organization to: authorize and support the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force; quickly dispatch the technical survey team to the country; make available adequate resources for the peacekeeping mission; extend necessary and adequate support to facilitate the process of internal dialogue; help in the mobilization of humanitarian assistance; and assist with resources for economic reconstruction.

Global poverty could not be wished away, neither could it be remedied by empty statements. It would only be eradicated by concerted global programmes. By solving the issue of poverty the problem of conflict and instability in the developing countries would also be solved. There were various ways in which Africa could be aided by the world, he said. The most important was the creation of conditions to enable the continent to trade with the international community on terms acceptable to all. Africa was not asking for charity, but genuine trade; not alms but fair and equitable recompense for its labour and resources; and not pity but genuine partnership based on mutual interests.

It was not good enough for the developed world to demand good governance, while creating conditions of poverty by bad governance in the economic area, he continued. "Justice must prevail in our economic relations in order to lay the foundation for political and social justice", he said. A start should be made by reviewing the inequitable conditions imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), which, if maintained, would ensure continued marginalization of third world countries.

DENZIL DOUGLAS, Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, said that in addition to the scourges of human conflict there were other evils. Poverty still confronted the vast majority of mankind. Children were still dying from malnutrition, were victimized and turned into cannon fodder with many of them unable to get an education. The new millennium belonged to the children and the international community had a duty to help make a better world for them than the one they now lived in. "How will banana farmers in Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica, or sugar cane workers in Saint Kitts and Nevis preserve the integrity of their families", he asked. How would they preserve the dignity of a good standard of living when the impersonal tentacles of globalization reached out to deprive them of the resources they needed to survive?

Human rights embodied the human condition in all its basic elements, he said. The United Nations, as a major guarantor of those rights should act as a counterbalance to globalization, which had begun to take food away from "our people" instead of helping them. The World Trade Organization (WTO)was expected to play a key role in promoting trade liberalization, thereby fuelling the globalization process. That body, however, was not a panacea for world trade. No new rules could alter the fact that, in most areas of exports, developed countries would have a comparative advantage over developing countries. It was a basic principle of economics that a country with a comparative advantage in production would always make money at the expense of less equipped countries. In short, the rules as now written would inevitably lead to a zero-sum situation where trading between developed and developing countries was concerned.

He said a regime of unrestricted trade could lead to tremendous shocks in the economies of less developed countries, with very critical repercussions for their citizens. "As part of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), we have already witnessed how the logic of applying the same rules to all, regardless of one's level of economic development, has led to serious dislocation within the banana- producing countries of our subregion", he said. Saint Kitts and Nevis would prefer to see the Organization, through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), take up the issue of what happens to countries caught up in the toils of a free trade regime. The United Nations was the one Organization capable of studying the issue objectively and putting recommendations before world leaders in order to remedy what could be potential disaster for small vulnerable economies.

By and large, countries such as his, which depended on a buoyant tourist sector, sugar exports and the provision of financial services, could not in principle object to a world of open economies. "But our position is that a world economic order predicated upon open economies works best with countries whose economies are roughly equal", he stressed. "If we are committed to eradicating poverty in every area of the world, then we must address the implications that are inherent in a trading arrangement.”. In the context of sustainable development, the Caribbean Sea was a special area. Saint Kitts and Nevis expected that the Member States, the international community and the United Nations system would actively support efforts to develop and implement the concept of that special area in order to avert the threat of pollution from ship-generated waste, as well as accidental release of hazardous noxious substances.

SARTAJ AZIZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, said that 10 years after the end of foreign intervention in Afghanistan, almost 3 million Afghan refugees still remained in Pakistan and Iran. Afghan people had the right to rehabilitation and reconstruction. Economic development, accompanied by education and modernization, was the best way to end violence, promote human rights and improve social conditions in that country. Preservation of Afghanistan's territorial integrity was pivotal for peace and stability throughout Central Asia. Pakistan was promoting peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan.

To provide political momentum to the bilateral dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir, at the Lahore Summit, Pakistan and India had committed themselves to intensifying their efforts to resolve that issue, he continued. However, India displayed no desire to genuinely address the dispute. The Kargil crisis was a manifestation of the deeper malaise spawned by the unresolved Kashmir problem and India's escalating repression of the Kashmiri people. While Pakistan was ready for the resumption of the Lahore process with India, India had posed pre- conditions for resuming the talks.

The Indian military deliberately shot down an unarmed Pakistan naval aircraft on a routine flight within Pakistani airspace, he continued. Kashmir was not a dispute over land -- it was about the destiny of the people and implementation of Security Council resolutions. The complete boycott by the Kashmiris of the sham elections organized in Kashmir by India earlier this month, was a clear testimony of their total alienation from India. To make progress towards a settlement, the world must demand that India halt its represssion of the Kashmiri people.

The risk of a wider conflict in a nuclear environment presented serious dangers for peace and security in South Asia and the entire world. Hoping to resume bilateral talks with India, Pakistan would welcome the association of the true representatives of the Kashmiri people in promoting a solution consistent with relevant Security Council resolutions. Last May, India had put the final nail in the coffin of South Asian non-proliferation when it conducted five nuclear tests and declared itself a nuclear-weapon State.

Confronted by an aggressive nuclear India, Pakistan was obliged to demonstrate its nuclear capability and thus restore nuclear deterrence and strategic balance. The response of the major Powers to penalize not only the offender, but also the victim, was patently unfair. Pakistan's hopes for restraint had been shattered by the announcement of India's "nuclear doctrine". Even the Indian "offer" of non-first use of nuclear weapons was designed to gain acceptance of India as a nuclear-weapon State. To preserve deterrence, Pakistan would be compelled to enhance its nuclear and missile capabilities.

The international community must act immediately to avoid a hair-trigger security environment in South Asia, he said. The Assembly should endorse the concept of strategic restraint in South Asia and urge India to disavow the proposed nuclear doctrine and refrain from further nuclear tests and adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). For its part, Pakistan remained committed to the CTBT in an atmosphere free of coercion. It was now essential to convene a conference, with the participation of all the permanent members of the Security Council and other interested Powers, as well as Pakistan and India, to promote the goals of strategic restraint and stability in South Asia. Pakistan supported the call for preserving the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) and avoiding the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems.

GEORGE A. PAPANDREOU, Foreign Minister of Greece, said that, slowly but surely, the world was observing the globalization of democracy, “and we dare to hope”. Nevertheless, the challenges and political dilemmas were formidable. Peace, human rights, ethics, values, wealth and basic health care must all be globalized. Beyond the globalization of democracy, there must be democratization of globalism. That was a vision worthy of the United Nations. All Member States must give the United Nations the authority and the means to perform its duties. Greece intended to do so. The time had come to expand the Organization’s authority, responsibility and budget.

While his country believed in strengthening the United Nations, it also believed in doing its own work on the ground. Together with the International Olympic Committee, Greece had proposed the creation of “a moment” -– a global moment, reviving the ancient Greek tradition of an Olympic Truce. He urged the Assembly to give full support to observance of the Olympic Truce during the games of the year 2000 in Australia, in Athens in 2004, and in all future Olympics. From Cyprus to Bosnia, a series of such moments was providing a ray of hope that one day, a united Balkans and southeastern Europe would belong to a united Europe. On Cyprus, there was hope that a new initiative might break the deadlock. The world hoped to see Cyprus as a federal State with a single sovereignty and single citizenship -- a united, demilitarized, independent country with its territorial integrity safe from encroachment and no foreign troops on its soil. In the spirit of newfound friendship between Greeks and Turks, he invited the Turkish Cypriots to seize a historic opportunity. “Let us break down the last ‘Berlin Wall’ that artificially divides these peoples”, he said.

Turning to the Balkans, he said that the tragic events in Kosovo would be remembered for acts of brutal ethnic cleansing and a military intervention that occurred without the authorization of the Security Council. There were those today who, pressured to “close the case” of the Balkans, opted for redrawing maps in hope that ethnic isolation and the erection of new barriers between the peoples of the region would bring peace. But there was no short path, no “lazy road”, to lasting peace in the Balkans. Borders were sacrosanct, but within those borders, the maximum must be done to protect minorities, democratic procedures and human rights. Greece supported all efforts to deepen democracy in the region. A total Balkan approach to democracy, security and reconstruction would pave the way for its neighbours to join the European Union. The former Republic of Yugoslavia was, of course, an integral part of such a total Balkan approach. So were Greece’s bilateral and trilateral contacts with Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania.

Finally, he said, he dared to hope for Greece’s relations with Turkey. For many months now, he had been engaged in careful diplomacy with his Turkish counterpart, Ismael Cem, inaugurating discussion of bilateral concerns ranging from trade and tourism to the environment. From the outset, Greece shared with Turkey the vision that one day Turkey would become a worthy member of a United Europe. The terrible earthquakes that had shaken both countries had accelerated the process. The Greek and Turkish rescue workers sifting through the rubble of buildings destroyed by the earthquakes had not waited for the diplomats to act. Their actions had globalized democracy.

NIELS HELVEG PETERSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Denmark, said Kosovo and East Timor raised serious questions about the classic concepts of State sovereignty, respect for human rights and the non-use of force in international relations and their interrelationship. The international community could not be idle in the face of gross and systematic violations of human rights. "Nor can we stand idly by if the United Nations and its representatives who have assisted a people in exercising its right to self-determination are trampled on", he stressed. While there was no shortage of rules -- starting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- what was still lacking was effective implementation of existing rules. "We must now aim at enforcement in order to provide assistance, regardless of frontiers, to the victims of human rights violations", he said. "We must show resolve in promoting respect for the rule of law and for the institutions called upon to uphold the law”.

He said the thorny question was whether and when to use military force when confronted with an emerging humanitarian catastrophe. The Security Council had the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Unfortunately it had not been able to live up to its responsibilities in the face of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Should that body's paralysis then lead to blind acceptance? he asked. No -- the international community could not stand idly by, while the principle of State sovereignty was misused in Kosovo to violate international humanitarian law. In that serious situation, the decision to launch the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) campaign had been legitimate and justified. It had also opened up a way for a political solution that brought the United Nations back into the central role. Where force had to be resorted to, "we have to look towards countries possessing that capability". In practical terms, that meant relying upon countries and regional organizations.

Addressing post-conflict resolution, he said that those who were responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity must be brought to justice. Although not perfect, the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court provided a satisfactory basis for an effective and credible Court. Another area in post-conflict resolution was the provision of assistance to societies split by civil strife. Denmark was ready to do its part, and a plan of action had already been drawn up to provide up to $100 million to the Western Balkans region.

Development cooperation must also remain an integral part of the efforts of the international community to promote and protect human security and development, he went on. The eradication of poverty – an important cause of conflict -- was also an essential goal in its own right. The creation of an enabling environment for development was a challenge for developing countries. Reforms, however, could not be imposed from outside. If they were to succeed, local ownership and local roots were essential.

He said official development assistance (ODA) had an essential role to play in helping the poorest countries, particularly Africa. It also helped to build up sectors that did not attract private investments. In that way, countries might also become able to attract private investment and avail themselves of the opportunities of international trade. In that context, it was deplorable to see ODA reaching its lowest point ever. Honouring the commitments of ODA entered into by industrialized countries had become a matter of credibility. It was also a question of the effectiveness of the multilateral system. The United Nations could not perform the tasks asked of it if it was denied the necessary means. The downward trend of ODA must be reversed.

JASWANT SINGH, Minister for External Affairs of India, said that political hindsight had revealed that globalization had to be politically directed to create equal economic opportunity, both within States and among States. India did not subscribe to constricting choice through State impositions. "But can 'free markets' offer true freedom of choice to those that are not even a part of the market?" he asked. That was why the State continued to have the responsibility to protect the needy and strengthen the weak. Today, when capital moved with almost no constraint, it was virtually impossible for developing countries to resist either its demands or manage the consequences of its sudden departure. If globalization was to benefit all, then some new international regulation was needed. The United Nations must take the initiative to hold, on an urgent basis, an international conference on financing for development.

In the political domain, too, managing change demanded openness and reasoned discourse, an essential ingredient of which was abjuring violence, he said. Terrorism was the very anti-thesis of all that the United Nations represented and stood for. It was a menace to which open societies were vulnerable. It became particularly difficult for democracies to counter when terrorists were armed, financed and backed by governments or their agencies, and benefited from the protection of State power.

He said that earlier in the year, India had been subjected, yet again, to an act of premeditated aggression. The act of faith which had resulted in the signing of the Lahore Declaration between Pakistan and India had been betrayed. A premeditated aggression by regular forces had been committed against India. In self-defence, India had taken all necessary and appropriate steps to evict the aggressing forces from its territory. Most regrettably, that aggression had set back the Lahore peace process that had been initiated. Whereas aggression over territory could more easily be vacated, he noted, the territory of trust which had been transgressed was infinitely more difficult to restore. That act of aggression had been, among other things, a manifestation of the larger disorders that the world had been witnessing in Afghanistan.

Turning to disarmament, he said that global nuclear disarmament was the objective set out by the 1946 General Assembly in the first resolution it had adopted. That objective still beckoned the international community. India had been obliged to acquire nuclear weapons because of the failure of the existing non-proliferation regime to address its primary security concerns. Yet, India's commitment to global nuclear disarmament stood undiluted. India was the only nuclear-weapon State ready to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention that would prohibit forever the development, production, stockpiling, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and provide for the elimination of all existing weapons under international verification.

BORIS SHIKHMURADOV, Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan, said the military and political upheavals of the past year called for a "fresh look at the system of international relations". He drew attention to the Secretary-General's analysis of modern conflict, and said the fact that 90 per cent of conflicts took place within States and not between them required "special consideration”.

"Purposeful cooperation between United Nations specialized agencies and national governments makes it possible to identify the main parameters of the conflict prevention strategy in each individual region", he said. But increased numbers of refugees and displaced people, fleeing either conflict or natural disaster, created a "potential for tension". In this respect, Turkmenistan attached great importance to the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). His Government, together with the UNHCR, was implementing an ad hoc programme of assistance to refugees based on a joint plan of action.

He drew attention to the situation in Afghanistan, which continued to cause serious concern. Turkmenistan held a sincere interest in the re-establishment of peace in that country, and was entirely neutral in the conflict. He added that the inter-Afghan talks in the Turkmen capital earlier this year "did not receive adequate support from outside". Turkmenistan would continue to work on the Afghan issue under any format of international cooperation, including the mechanism of the “6 + 2” group under the auspices of the United Nations.

He said his Government shared "the commonly held view that the United Nations system needs rational reform in the twenty-first century". It was important, however, to take a "balanced approach to the destiny of the Organization rather than cause it harm and become the hostage of emotion."

JAN KAVAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, said that this year marked an important milestone for his country, which only last spring had become a member of NATO. He believed that this, the first enlargement of the alliance after the cold war, would contribute to the enhancement of stability and security in his region, as well as around the world. The NATO's new strategic concept emphasized its broad approach to security issues, and he supported that organization’s continued enlargement to include other countries.

He said that development in Europe was profoundly influenced by ever deeper integration. Therefore, the successful completion of the long-term process of his country's entry into the European Union was the highest priority for Czech foreign policy. Having started accession talks last spring, the Czech Republic had promoted political dialogue with European Union members and associated countries.

The tragedy in Kosovo and other crises brought to light how important the principle of personal security of human beings and its guarantees were a precondition for world peace and security, he said. The Czech Republic was interested in the region's stability and the fact that these atrocities were being committed at the end of the twentieth century made this recognition all the more alarming. In that context, he expressed appreciation and support for the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Czech Republic was convinced that the international community's effort would result in just punishment for all the atrocities that had been committed. Kosovo would be a benchmark for the success achieved by international institutions.

The United Nations played an irreplaceable role in providing international peace and security, he said. His country attached great importance to the use of peacekeeping operations in dealing with crisis situations and supported efforts directed towards their higher efficiency, particularly regarding their rapid deployment. Speed was a key aspect, but the United Nations should also have adequate funding to carry out this demanding role effectively. Unfortunately, its resources were considerably limited, because some Member States had failed to honour their obligations. The United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK) had been marked by this problem -- although it had been the most rapidly deployed mission in the history of the United Nations, it had not been financially secure to a degree which corresponded with the security situation and the difficult task of restoring civil administration.

He said this year had been a "real" test for the United Nations, as well as a critical test of transnational decision-making during crises. This test, so crucial to the future of the United Nations, had not yet been concluded or properly evaluated. He therefore suggested several possible solutions that would help answer the question of how the international community could become a truly responsible community, and what role the United Nations could play in the process.

He said that the United Nations must respond to the changed substance of conflicts in today's world. In most cases, conflicts were no longer between States but were internal conflicts akin to civil wars. The United Nations and the international community needed to clearly define the relation of "national sovereignty versus protection of human rights".

He urged the radical acceleration of the United Nations reform process, particularly reform of the Security Council. The composition of the Security Council required change -- both permanent and non-permanent membership needed to be increased and the representation of developing countries needed to be strengthened.

The future of the United Nations was primarily a matter of the political will of its Member States, he said. "Finding answers to the questions raised at this year's General Assembly is therefore not only up to the United Nations, but to the entire international community."

Right of Reply

INAMUL HAQUE (Pakistan), speaking in exercise of the right of the reply, said that the Indian Foreign Minister had accused Pakistan of compulsive hostility against India. That statement was as disingenuous as it was hypocritical. It would be difficult to be misled by India’s protests of its intentions to its neighbours in light of its history. Since independence, India's ambitions -- its hegemonic and expansionist policies -- had been amply demonstrated.

Since independence, India had occupied a number of territories through the use of force, he went on to say. In addition, it had repeatedly committed aggressive acts and imposed wars against Pakistan. It was also India's ambition that had impelled it to acquire nuclear weapons and plunge to South Asia into an arms race. It was Pakistan's compulsion to defend itself, its independence, its territorial integrity and its sovereignty, since it had borne the brunt of India's aggression.

He said the Foreign Minister of India had also referred to Jammu and Kashmir as the very core of Indian nationhood. If that was the core then it must be a rotten one. That core was built on the denial of the right to self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, which had been pledged by India to the international community, the Security Council and the people of Kashmir. No core of nationhood could be built on the denial of the basic right to statehood.

That core of nationhood, he continued, was also built on the violation and open flouting of international law and resolutions of the Council -- the very body to which India aspired for a permanent seat. If that was the core of Indian nationhood, it was built on murder, arson and the rape of women. More than 60,000 had been murdered, thousands raped and villages burnt to the ground. No nation could pride itself in having a core built on such despicable action. If that was the core, then the less said about it the better.

The fact about Kashmir was that it was not and never had been a part of India. A Council resolution pledging the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris was accepted by India. Sham elections held by that country had been boycotted by the Kashmiri people to show their rejection of and their alienation from Indian rule. All Indian atrocities had been documented by international human rights organizations, including some in India itself. Until Kashmir achieved its right to self-determination, its people's struggle would continue.

The Foreign Minister of India had also accused Pakistan of torturing Indian soldiers and killing them in captivity. There could be no worse falsehood than that. Pakistan did not have to do that because it abided by international law. However, in the face of such false accusations, "we now invite the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) when handing over Indian soldiers who are captured when they cross over into Pakistani territory", he said.

He said India had spoken about international terrorism -- they had written the book on State-sponsored terrorism which had resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. There were confessions from hundreds of Indian agents attesting to that fact. Sentiments about democracy and pluralism meant nothing unless they were put into practice. India spoke about peace at the United Nations,yet waged war on the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The path to peace was open, and Pakistan had offered India dialogue to find a solution to ending the repression in Jammu and Kashmir and all other outstanding issues.

* *** *