QUESTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY, THE STATE SYSTEM, THE FUTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION RAISED BY GENERAL DEBATE SPEAKERS

Press Release
GA/9606

QUESTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY, THE STATE SYSTEM, THE FUTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION RAISED BY GENERAL DEBATE SPEAKERS

The United Nations could not assume that it would survive intact by clinging to structures and processes conceived in 1945, S. Jayakumar, Foreign Minister of Singapore, told the General Assembly as it continued its General Debate this morning. While it was clear that it must now change, less clear was how it should change.

The hard-won lesson of this century's experiments with international organizations, he continued, was that the Organization must work within the framework of the state system. The Organization has lasted longer than the League of Nations because it accommodated the State system, rather than posed a threat to it. Its basis was the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members. It also stressed the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. Those premises were now under pressure, and an unprecedented and qualitatively new kind of international cooperation was needed.

Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, said that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention had no place in international law, for it implied an organized onslaught on the most fundamental rules of the present international order, such as sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and non-interference. Continued United States hegemony and governance of the destinies of the world, as well as international economic and political organizations, placed the United Nations in the face of the most serious challenge it had encountered since its establishment.

Also contemplating the future development of the United Nations, Felipe Perez Roque, Foreign Minister of Cuba, said that in a world dominated by a single military and technological power, attempts to impose such notions as the limitation of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention posed a threat to the countries of the third world. He urged that Security Council veto power be accorded to an expanded more representative group of permanent members, if it could not be eliminated altogether.

He added that, given the absolute contempt demonstrated by the United States towards General Assembly resolutions on its embargo against his country, the people of Cuba had decided -- independently of the battle that went on in the Assembly -- to resort to legal procedures in order to demand appropriate sanctions in respect of that policy of "genocide".

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9606 12th Meeting (AM) 24 September 1999

Kamal Kharrazi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said full participation of all States, as well as of civil society organizations was necessary in the global decision-making process. The residuals of the bipolar system and security block umbrellas needed to be replaced with a new and innovative concept of inclusive and participatory global security networking. The United Nations had an indispensable pivotal role in shaping the new world of the next millennium.

Also speaking this morning were President of Panama Mireya Moscoso, President of the Dominican Republic Leonel Fernandez Reyna and Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Senegal and Kazakhstan.

The Assembly will continue its general debate at 3 p.m. today.

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this morning to continue its General Debate. The Presidents of Panama and the Dominican Republic, as well as the Foreign Ministers of Senegal, Cuba, Iran, Kazakhstan, Singapore and Iraq were scheduled to address the delegates.

MIREYA MOSCOSO, President of Panama, said she was speaking on behalf of a young and proud nation. Its geographical location gave it a special role as a bridge between nations. The handing over by the United States of the administration of the Panama Canal to the Panamanian people, which was scheduled for 31 December this year, reflected the efforts of many patriotic Panamanians.

Since its inception in 1914, the Canal had been an important symbol for her people, she said. The Canal would be operated by Panama not only to strengthen international trade, but also to promote substantial development. Panamanians had agreed to place the Canal above and beyond political differences. It would be operated with efficiency and a high level of services would be ensured.

One of the priorities of the Canal Authority was preservation of the environment, she continued. Successive United States Governments had been helping to overcome environmental difficulties. However, certain matters still needed to be tackled by both Governments, including cleaning up the areas which had been used by the United States Army. Her country hoped that its future relations with the United States would be based on mutual respect and equity.

Her Government had reviewed its economic policy, giving, among other measures, more emphasis to the development of rural communities. The Government also had a fundamental concern to improve the quality of life of the neediest and to open new markets for its products, ensuring greater cooperation with developed nations. She was proud to be the first Panamanian woman to serve as the President of the nation. She felt she had been called to promote sustainable development, the democratic system and human rights. She also intended to work towards promoting gender equality.

In conclusion, she urged the international community to resolutely embark on the struggle against poverty and destitution. She also called on countries to come to the rescue of the weak and those threatened by forces beyond their control. The need to strengthen the role of the United Nations should be emphasized, in order to promote human rights and defend those who suffered inconceivable injustices, but did not have a voice.

LIONEL FERNANDEZ REYNA, President of the Dominican Republic, said that as the new century approached, "the acute and horrifying contrast" between wealth and poverty in the world constituted the biggest challenge for the international community and the United Nations system. "There is no doubt that never before has the world accumulated such wealth," he said. However, because all that wealth was concentrated in just a few central countries, the world had also never seen so much poverty. While there were no magic formulas to resolve the situation, the united efforts of all nations, rich and poor, working in a spirit of solidarity and a sense of humanity could contribute to a significant reduction of poverty.

He said he supported the decision of the member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to finance development in poor countries with 0.7 per cent of their gross national product. The objective of that programme was to reduce the debt of developing nations by half by the year 2015. The tendency to decrease official assistance in less favoured countries was unfair when more than $1 trillion a day circulated in the international capitol markets of central or highly developed countries, he added. "All of Haiti's problems would be solved with only one minute's worth of the world’s banking transactions," he said. "The same could be said of Nicaragua, and Honduras, and even our own country, the Dominican Republic".

The current proposal to reduce the foreign debt of only highly indebted poor countries was not sufficient, he continued. It excluded a group of countries, including the Dominican Republic, that had made significant efforts to achieve progress and peace but still had to struggle to overcome underdevelopment and poverty. A more just recognition of these indebted countries would be to condone the external debt, or eliminate interest rates. Liberalizing resources would also be highly favourable for the creditor countries and the international banking community since it would increase the purchasing power of poor nations and would generate a new dynamism in the world economy.

The Asian financial crisis had caused both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to propose the creation of a new international financial structure that would stabilise financial markets through the adoption of a set of cautious measures, he said. That would prevent another crisis in the future. While he believed this proposal was wise, he stressed that a "true new international financial structure should be oriented to the introduction of measures geared to reduce poverty".

Achieving the eradication of poverty was the big challenge before the United Nations in the twenty-first century, he said. In order to confront such a challenge, the United Nations itself must go through a process of changes and reforms. This process should begin with the recognized equality of all Member States. The United Nations should not differentiate between powerful nations that have the right of veto and those that were poor or marginalized. Reforms of the Security Council should be carried out by the principles of equal geographic distribution and the equal sovereignty of Member States. Any reform that would lead to the discriminatory treatment by the developed nations of the still- developing nations was not acceptable, he stressed. “It is with this spirit that the Dominican Republic aspires, in the future, to a seat as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

JACQUES BAUDIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal, said that the reform of the Organization should be implemented in a spirit of realism and clear- sightedness. Reform of the Security Council should demonstrate common resolve to ensure greater transparency, authority, credibility and legitimacy for that body. The need to adapt the United Nations to the demands of the new millennium did not obscure the need to maintain peace and security in the world. In that respect, he welcomed certain developments towards peace in Africa, including progress towards peace and national reconciliation in Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau.

The signing in Lusaka of a ceasefire agreement between the parties to conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was also reassuring, he said. He hoped that after numerous delays, there would soon be progress towards holding the Western Sahara referendum. However, significant breakthroughs should not overshadow

persistent conflicts in Ethiopia and Eritrea, Angola and Somalia, where no significant reconciliation had been achieved, despite the efforts of the Organization of African Unity. In the Middle East, there was hope for resolution of difficulties. His country reaffirmed its solidarity with the people of Palestine and supported the Bethlehem 2000 project, which envisioned the celebration of the new Millennium on the Palestinian territory.

Serious attention should be paid to the lack of adequate sustainable development in different parts of the world, to commercial tensions and insufficient growth, he continued. Despite the fact that African countries could not find markets for their products and had witnessed a flight of capital from their economies, they had shown growth in gross national product, due mainly to internal restructuring efforts. The World Trade Organization should recognize the need to assure that the growth of world trade corresponded to the needs of the least-developed countries. Also, the developed countries should implement commitments undertaken at the Uruguay Round of tariff negotiations. Impediments for trade should be removed, and he hoped that the coming November Round would take into account the concerns of the developing countries.

The debt burden for the African continent was staggering, he continued. Proposals formulated by the group of eight industrialized countries (G8), the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations had indicated a new approach to that problem. New machinery for debt alleviation and for structural reforms was needed. However, one truth remained constant: sustainable development was, above all, a responsibility of each individual state. While the international community needed to find a global solution of the debt problem, that did not detract from the need for the developing countries to tackle their own indebtedness in a better way. In that connection, a notable improvement in national savings was needed.

KAMAL KHARRAZI, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said full participation of all states as well as of civil society organizations was necessary in the global decision-making process. One of the most horrifying manifestations of exclusion had been the global arms race. It marginalized “others” through accumulation of conventional and mass destructive agents of death, formation of rival military blocks and a race to expand spheres of influence. In this approach, justice and human rights were often sacrificed when necessitated by block interest.

Ethnic hatred had suppressed the most basic human values by the blind wave of ethnic and religious bigotry, he said. In Afghanistan, peace and stability and respect for the most fundamental rights of Afghan women, men and children in Taliban controlled areas had all but become dreams, turning that country into a bastion of narcotics, terrorism and regional instability. Terrorism had become a serious menace and a global challenge. Its targets were the rule of law, popular participation and institutions of civil society. Terrorism could and would be contained and eradicated if all hands were joined. Application of double standards, however, would seriously undermine such a global campaign.

President Khatami’s initiative for dialogue among civilizations had received an overwhelming reception among the international community. The fundamental assumption of that proposal was that prosperity, welfare, development and security of one group in spite of -– or at the expense of -– the poverty, hunger, underdevelopment and insecurity of others was simply deceptive and short-lived, and thus needed to be abandoned, he said. Pluralism, acceptance of diversity and dialogue among cultures and civilizations would undoubtedly enhance the

universality of human rights instruments, making them more readily acceptable and able to be implemented globally.

Peace through war and security through threat were conceptually flawed. The residuals of the bipolar system needed to be set aside and block security umbrellas needed to be replaced with a new and innovative concept of global security networking. Global security networking was inclusive and participatory, and used existing mechanisms in a complementary rather than competing scheme. The United Nations had an indispensable pivotal role in shaping the world of the next millennium, Mr. Kharrazi said. Enhancement of the relevance of the United Nations required strengthening the role of the General Assembly. The General Assembly, as the sole democratic, universal and transparent organ of the United Nations, was the proper forum to carry out an in-depth analysis of the implications of the emerging debate on collective action to address humanitarian catastrophes, he said.

FELIPE PEREZ ROQUE, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said that in a world dominated by a single military and technological power, attempts to impose such notions as the limitation of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention posed a threat to the countries of the third world, must be brought to an end, as they violated the letter and spirit of the Charter. He proposed increasing the number of permanent members of the Security Council to include nations from Latin America, Africa and Asia. Ideally, no one should have the power of veto, but if it could not be eliminated, it should at least be evenly shared among a larger number of permanent members. He also suggested that it be restricted to the power to veto measures proposed under Chapter VII of the Charter.

While the wealthy countries had transnational companies, which controlled more than a third of worldwide exports, the poor countries bore the asphyxiating burden of foreign debt, he said. That debt had reached $2 trillion and continued to grow; interest payments devoured almost 25 per cent of exports. What would the next century's economists say when they realized that the United States lived with a current account deficit of around $300 billion, without the International Monetary Fund imposing on it a single one of the severe economic adjustment programmes that were impoverishing third world nations? he asked. The current international economic system was not only unjust but unsustainable. An economic system that destroyed the environment could not be sustained. Nor was it possible to sustain an economic system based on the wealthy nations' irrational consumption patterns, which were later exported to the poor countries through the mass media.

If there were ever an eloquent example of what should not be done in the relations between power nations and small ones, it could be seen in Cuba, he said. For more than 40 years, Cubans had been subjected to a brutal policy of hostility and aggression imposed by the United States. The blockade, shamelessly and euphemistically referred to as an "embargo", had been progressively intensified. The genocidal policy had reached even more infamous heights with the Helms-Burton Act, which codified all previous administrative restrictions, expanded and tightened the blockade and established it in perpetuity.

For seven consecutive years, the General Assembly had consistently called for an end to the economic blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba, he recalled. The world's condemnation had increased visibly from year to year. Given the absolute contempt demonstrated by the United States with regard to those resolutions, the people of Cuba had decided -- independently of the battle that

went on in the Assembly -- to resort to legal procedures to which they had a right in order to demand sanctions corresponding to those responsible for those acts of genocide.

KASSYMZHOMART K. TOKAEV, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, said that conflict in the modern world was rooted in ethnic, national and religious intolerance. It was “absolutely unacceptable that this most dangerous virus” was spreading rapidly throughout the world, giving rise to “terrorist acts and bloody conflicts”.

The Yugoslav crisis had clearly demonstrated the urgency of strengthening the authority of the United Nations, Mr. Tokaev said. Kazakhstan was becoming increasingly convinced of the need to enhance the responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. That was why his country believed the Security Council should enter the next century “renewed and strengthened through the admission of new permanent members, first of all Japan and Germany, as well as non-permanent members representing different regions of the world”, he added.

International efforts to reinforce the non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and fissile material remained at the centre of Kazakhstan’s policy. The renunciation of nuclear weapons and accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPI) and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) had become a natural choice for his country. Kazakhstan also supported the initiative to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in Central Asia.

Mr. Tokaev said recent political developments illustrated the urgency of creating a security system on the Asian continent and referred to recent agreements for a mechanism of confidence building relating to military activities by five States in the area, the so-called “Shanghai Five”.

S. JAYAKUMAR, Foreign Minister of Singapore, said that the simple but hard- won lesson of this century's experiments with international organizations was that the United Nations must work within the framework of the state system. The Organization had lasted longer than the League of Nations because it had accommodated the state system, rather than posed a threat to it. Its Member States saw it as an additional protective umbrella, not as a body that diminished them. It could do nothing its Members did not expressly allow. Its basis was the principle of sovereign equality of all its Members. It also stressed the concomitant principle of non-interference in internal affairs.

However, those premises were now under assault, he continued. Two forces -- the pressures of a truly integrated world economy and the end of the Cold War -- were impelling change. Neither force was adequately understood. Globalization affected the very notion of statehood and government as they had so far been perceived. The essential function of any government was to govern and provide public goods and services to its citizens within its borders. But in a globalized economy, national borders no longer encompassed sufficient territory to function as self-contained economic units. Financial geography and economic geography no longer coincided with political geography. The challenge facing sovereign states was no longer one of interaction with other states. The real challenge was now within each state, forcing a reconceptualization of the very idea of government and statehood, and requiring a change of mindset that would be difficult and painful to achieve. What was required was an unprecedented and qualitatively new kind of international cooperation calling for redefinition of what constituted "states" and

"national interests". For that kind of international cooperation to take root, it must be shown to be superior to any other political alternative.

It was here, said Mr. Jayakumar, that the interplay of globalization and the post-Cold War international order complicated matters. The Cold War had imposed identities that transcended nationalism. Its end provided an opportunity to seek reassurance and a new identity in real or imagined ethnic nationalisms. The resulting proliferation of states and the lack of a clear organizing principle had made international cooperation problematic. Unfortunately, the reaction to this mismatch between economic and political geography had been a new protectionism and xenophobic nationalisms -- or, where a country felt strong and confident enough, a new kind of extraterroriality in which strong states tried to project their national laws and standards beyond their boundaries. There had, of course, been regional responses to this need for a new kind of cooperation. But relying on regionalism as more than a stopgap in a globalized world created latent instability.

The international problem, he said, was compounded by the failure of expectations that the post-Cold War system would be multi-polar. The war in Kosovo had focussed the feelings of discomfort engendered by the new situation, throwing into brutal relief a growing realization that the absolute sovereignty of states had to be qualified to require compliance with generally accepted standards of conduct and respect for human rights. Clearly, a new balance needed to be struck between sovereignty and other values. But it was no longer acceptable for questions of international peace and stability to be decided on an ad hoc basis. What was needed was replication, on a global scale, of the conditions that had kept the pluralistic societies in advanced economies capable of collective action. What was required on the international stage was what had already been accepted domestically, indeed insisted upon in the name of democracy: a modest acceptance of the reality of diversity and a nuanced appreciation of the difference between friends, friendly critics and honest disagreements. At best, the Foreign Minister concluded, the United Nations had played only a very marginal role in the great developments of the closing years of the century. It could not assume that it would survive intact by clinging to structures and processes conceived in 1945. It was clear that it must now change. Less clear was how it should change. The process of discussion must start now.

MOHAMMED SAID AL-SAHAF, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq, said that with the end of the Cold War, there had been a feeling that the world would see balanced international relations based on peace, stability and well-being. But the state of affairs had proved the contrary, as the international imbalance continued. The most dangerous phenomenon witnessed during the present decade, which had become an orchestrated endeavour of a group of western States, was the advocacy of what was called humanitarian intervention. That doctrine, which had no place in international law, implied an organized onslaught on the most fundamental rules of the present international order, such as sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and non-interference.

Continuing, the Minister said that in 1998, the Security Council was discussing the arrangements to conduct a comprehensive review of the implementation by Iraq of its obligations under Council resolutions, with a view to consider the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990, he said. While the Council was convening to

discuss the matter, the forces of the United States and the United Kingdom launched a large-scale military aggression against Iraq, using the lies and fabrications of Richard Butler as a pretext for their aggression. In spite of that flagrant violation of the Charter, the Council remained completely crippled without taking any immediate collective measure.

While the Council's resolutions had imposed obligations on Iraq, they had in return imposed a specific obligation on the Council -- that the embargo was to be lifted once Iraq had fulfilled its obligations under the same resolutions, he continued. The Council had failed to lift the embargo on Iraq due to the hegemony of the United States on the Council, which had prevented the proper implementation of the Council's resolutions. Iraq, he said demanded its clear and legitimate rights, namely the lifting of the sanctions, in accordance with Council resolutions. It had become clear for all, that the former special commission had been used by the United States and the United Kingdom to achieve their aggressive objectives against Iraq's people, sovereignty and security.

One of the basic pillars of the American-British hostile policy towards Iraq was the imposition of the two no-fly-zones on Iraq, he said. That was a violation of the United Nations Charter and of international law. Proceeding from its legitimate right to self-defence guaranteed by all international covenants, Iraq would not hesitate to counter all the American and British aggressive acts aimed at violating the inviolability of its airspace and territory, and threatening its security and territorial integrity. The policy of the United States had also encouraged Turkey to carry out large-scale military operations inside Iraqi territory under the pretext of chasing the elements of the Workers’ Party of Kurdestan (PKK). The continued United States hegemony and governance of the destinies of the world, as well as international economic and political organizations, has placed the United Nations in the face of the most serious challenge it has ever encountered since its foundation”.

* *** *