MILITARY POWER NOW USED UNHESITATINGLY AGAINST SMALL, WEAKER COUNTRIES, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE"S REPUBLIC OF KOREA TELLS FIRST COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/DIS/3146

MILITARY POWER NOW USED UNHESITATINGLY AGAINST SMALL, WEAKER COUNTRIES, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA TELLS FIRST COMMITTEE

Stresses Need for Each Country to Safeguard Self-Defence; Speakers Also Address Need to Control Traffic in Small Arms

Today when absolute military supremacy was openly proclaimed and power was unhesitatingly used against small and weak countries, it had become even more pressing for each country to safeguard their self- defence, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea told the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) this afternoon, as it continued its general debate.

While some military powers had produced, developed and deployed sophisticated weapons at will, they had questioned the self-defence efforts of other countries, particularly developing ones, under the pretext of disarmament and non-proliferation. The existing military bloc in Europe had been expanded and strengthened, and the formation of a new military bloc had been accelerated in North-East Asia. The collective arms build-up there had been ignored, while attempts at the militarization and nuclearization of Japan had been encouraged. At the same time, the “Star Wars” plan of the cold war era -- disguised as the “National Missile Defense System” or the “Theater Missile Defense System” -- had been openly pursued. Such hegemonism and power politics had not only impeded global disarmament, but had posed the new threat of a global arms race.

The representative of Myanmar, on behalf of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), noted the growing nuclear danger and mounting risk of nuclear and missile proliferation. The nuclear-weapon States had placed greater emphasis and reliance on nuclear weapons, he said, which was inconsistent with their declared commitment to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons. Therefore, he reiterated the call for the commencement of multilateral negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a phased programme of balanced, deep reductions of nuclear weapons, leading to their total elimination. Also, he stressed the importance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and joined the international calls for the

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3146 9th Meeting (PM) 15th October 1999

ratification by all States of both the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The representative of Jamaica, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), warned that the continued stalemate on the disarmament agenda would inevitably erode progress and lead to a prospect no one dared to contemplate. Efforts to regulate conventional arms, however, had shown more positive results, particularly in the area of small arms and light weapons. The proliferation of, and illegal trafficking in small arms was of great concern to the Caribbean. The illicit arms trade had reached alarming proportions in recent years. One of its most troubling manifestations in the Caribbean had been the linkage with the narcotics trade and a frightening escalation of violence, which had seriously impeded development prospects and increasingly threatened regional and international peace and security. Those States, however, were committed to harmonizing their national legislation and facilitating the exchange of information to curb the illegal flows of those weapons.

Also addressing small arms, the representative of Zambia expressed concern with the current dangerous level of illicit trafficking in such weapons and said their continued illegal transfer, particularly to non- State entities, was causing the excessive build-up of small arms in African conflicts. He emphasized that the responsibility for the problem did not lie entirely with the recipient. The producing and exporting countries were morally and legally responsible for preventing the acquisition of those weapons by anyone other than legitimate governments.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Yemen, Qatar, Guatemala, Madagascar and Cameroon.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Monday, 18 October, to continue its general debate.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue its general debate on a wide range of disarmament initiatives and a number of international disarmament agreements.

One such multilateral agreement -- the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) -- still requires the ratification of 18 countries necessary to the Treaty's success. The United States Senate rejected the Treaty yesterday. Ratification by the other nuclear-weapon States, Russian Federation and China, is pending and may be in question because of the rejection by the United States. Other States whose ratification is required under article 14 of the Treaty, namely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India and Pakistan, still have not signed the Treaty, which opened for signature in 1996.

A conference to facilitate the Treaty's entry into force concluded last Friday, 8 October, in Vienna. In a Final Declaration, the participating States parties and signatories to the CTBT called upon all States that had not yet done so to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible and to refrain from acts which would defeat its object and purpose.

On non-proliferation, the lack of positive results from the three preparatory committee sessions leading up to the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will be discussed. The Treaty, which was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, is considered by many experts to be the bedrock of the non-proliferation regime. With 188 States parties, it is the most universal of all disarmament agreements.

The nuclear disarmament debate was expected to take into account bilateral arrangements, including the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems -- the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty -- by which the United States and the Russian Federation agreed to limit the deployment and development of anti- ballistic missiles.

Attempts to revise that cornerstone treaty of strategic balance could have other ramifications, such as the further delay in ratification by the Russian Duma of the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II), which is the second of two treaties by which the United States and the Russian Federation agreed to significantly reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

The original treaty, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START I, was signed in 1991 and called for a 30 per cent reduction in strategic weapons over seven years, with stringent verification. In 1993, START II provided for the elimination of heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and all other multiple-warhead ICBMs, as well as a two-thirds reduction of the total number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by both sides. Negotiation on further reductions under START III can commence only upon entry into force of START II.

Treaties banning the production and stockpiling of other weapons of mass destruction were also expected to dominate the debate, among them the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention). The call has intensified to forge a consensus behind a protocol that would establish effective verification of and compliance with that 1978 Treaty.

The entry into force on 29 April 1997 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) triggered the operation of a complex verification mechanism, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which has completed 503 inspections and has witnessed the destruction of more than 3,000 metric tons of chemical agents. So far, 126 States have ratified or acceded to the Convention.

The Committee is also expected to focus on the establishment of nuclear- weapon-free zones. The zones already in existence are governed by the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok) and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba). Committee drafts are anticipated for the establishment of such zones in the Middle East, Central Europe and South Asia.

Discussions will also continue on the subject of landmines, in the context of the two instruments to ban or limit their use. The first was Protocol II of the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), a partial ban negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), a total ban, was agreed to in Oslo as part of the so-called "Ottawa process" and entered into force on 1 March.

(For detailed background, see Press Release GA/DIS/3139 issued 8 October.)

Statements

PETER LESA KASANDA (Zambia) said that the past year would be remembered as a lost year as far as progress in arms control and disarmament. It was a record of disagreement and hardening of positions. The Conference on Disarmament should be allowed to commence substantive discussions on all nuclear disarmament issues.

The failure to achieve progress in the Preparatory Committee for the 2000 NPT Review Conference, he said, vindicated the efforts of the new agenda coalition in sponsoring a resolution that should renew the debate on nuclear disarmament. Given the disappointing record of the past year on that subject, the First Committee should send a strong message by supporting the draft resolution, which has been amended to accommodate the concern of some States expressed in the Committee last year.

He said his Government was concerned with the current dangerous level of proliferation of the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons. The responsibility for the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons should not lie entirely with the recipient parties. Continued proliferation and illegal transfers of small arms, particularly to non-State entities, is among the other factors responsible for the supply of the weapons being used in conflicts across the African continent. The producing and exporting countries were morally and legally responsible for preventing the acquisition of those weapons by anyone other than legitimate governments. He welcomed the scheduled international conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in 2001.

The suffering caused by anti-personnel mines required urgent attention, he added. His country continued to experience the effects of mines planted during the anti-colonial wars in southern Africa. In order to ensure the worldwide implementation of the Ottawa Convention, some of its provisions had to be applied on a provisional basis, pending its final entry into force. Every effort should be made to make the landmines convention universal and its provisions implemented fully. In Zambia, landmines planted in large tracts of land along the border areas by both sides in the wars of national liberation had rendered productive land unusable. Given its impact, the landmine problem needed urgent attention and practical measures. He praised the work of the United Nations Mine Action Service and said there should be adequate funding of its voluntary Trust Fund to enable it to carry out its work.

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the realization of effective disarmament was a prerequisite for international security and represented a common aspiration of humankind. At the approach of a new millennium, however, global disarmament was confronted with various grave challenges. Hegemonism and power politics were creating grave obstacles to global disarmament. Indeed, some nuclear-weapon States still relied on nuclear deterrence and maintained large nuclear arsenals. In addition, the existing military bloc had been expanded and strengthened in Europe, on the one hand, and the process of forming a new military bloc had been accelerated in North-East Asia, on the other hand. While an increasing number of sovereign States were under armed attack, the “Star Wars” plan of the cold-war era -- disguised as the “National Missile Defense System” or the “Theater Missile Defense System” – had been openly propelled. Such power politics had not only impeded global disarmament, but had posed new threats of a global arms race.

The application of double standards was another obstacle to accelerating global disarmament, he said. While some military Powers had produced, developed and deployed sophisticated weapons at will, the self-defence efforts of other countries, particularly developing ones, were being questioned under the heading of disarmament and non-proliferation. In North-East Asia, in particular, the real threats from the collective arms build-up and military alliances, had been neglected. His country was very concerned about the tolerance and encouragement of the attempts made by Japan at militarization and nuclearization through the stockpiling of a large quantity of plutonium. Meanwhile, political and economic sanctions and military threats had been imposed on other countries under various pretexts.

All countries had equal self-defence rights regardless of the size of the territory on the level of development, he said. In today’s reality, where absolute military supremacy was openly proclaimed and power was unhesitatingly used against small and weak countries, it had become an even more pressing question for each country to safeguard the right of self-defence. Disarmament issues, therefore, should be debated in the context of respect for the sovereignty of nations. Only by doing so could global disarmament be impartial and effective. It was also vital that the military Powers demonstrate political will by taking practical disarmament measures. Instead, the arsenals of the military Powers had been improved, both in quality and quantity, through the replacement of obsolete weapons with sophisticated ones. At the same time, those Powers were emphasizing non- proliferation. In the absence of genuine disarmament, the international disarmament efforts should no longer serve the absolute military supremacy of certain countries. The military Powers should take actual steps first, to ensure tangible progress.

He said that the top priority in global disarmament and the objective of nuclear disarmament should be a complete elimination of nuclear weapons. As long as those weapons existed, the world could never be stable. Contrary to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons and the relevant General Assembly resolutions, no multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention had begun, due to the persistent nuclear deterrence theory of the cold-war era and the one-sided insistence on nuclear non-proliferation on the part of some nuclear- weapon States. His delegation, therefore, believed that a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament should be convened as early as possible with a view to establishing the objective and direction for nuclear disarmament.

The political and military confrontational structure of the cold war still remained on the Korean peninsula, principally because the United States and its followers had not given up hostile policies towards his country, he said. The United States -- which had long ago set forth as a policy the objective to control the whole Korean peninsula –- had pledged to respect the sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and treat it impartially. Contrary to its pledges, however, the United States had constantly threatened the sovereignty of his country by deploying huge armed forces and weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and its surroundings. Moreover, the United States had described his country’s satellite launch as a “missile threat” and had already completed its “Operation Plan 5027-98”, aimed at eliminating the system of the Democratic People’s Republic. All of those acts had clearly proved that the United States was still pursuing the policy of stifling his country’s socialist system.

During the past half century, he went on, Japan had followed the United States’ policy of stifling his country, and had continued to antagonize it. In particular, Japan had recently been inciting a hostile atmosphere against the Democratic People’s Republic by claiming that its satellite launch had constituted a “missile threat”. Japan had foolishly miscalculated that it could speed up militarization under the pretext of such “threats” and when that system disappeared, as envisaged in the United States’ plan, Japan could be relieved of the burden of liquidating its past crimes. The South Korean authorities had also intensified their military collaboration with the United States and Japan against the north and had persistently pursued a confrontational policy camouflaged as the “sunshine policy”.

He said that it was natural, in order to cope with the massive power and stifling policy of the United States and its followers, that his country would strengthen its self-defence capabilities, even though it lacked almost everything and still had a number of difficulties ahead. All of the facts had shown that the continuing confrontation, which could spark another war at any moment on the Korean peninsula, was entirely attributable to the hostile policies towards the Democratic People’s Republic by the United States and its followers.

Ensuring permanent peace on the Korean peninsula required that the United States give up its hostile policy against his country and adopt an impartial policy which did not instigate north-south confrontation, he said. Accordingly, the United States should discard its policy aimed at destroying the system of his country, ease all sanctions against it comprehensively and remove military “belligerency” by concluding a peace treaty. Japan should also abandon its hostile policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic by stopping all political and military action against it and liquidating its past crimes. If the United States and its followers were to sincerely do so, the Democratic People’s Republic would respond in good faith by resolving their concerns. If those countries remained unchanged in their policies, however, his country would respond with strong self- defence measures.

Given the unique reality of the Korean peninsula, dismantling a confrontational structure and relaxing tensions would not be possible without advancing towards the reunification of Korea, he said. The reunification should be realized in the form of a confederation, on the basis of the principles of independence, peaceful reunification and great national unity. Undeniably, the two different social systems had existed in the north and the south for the last half century, and neither side was willing to give up its own system. The most desirable method of reunification, therefore, was on the basis of one nation, one State, two systems and two governments.

If the United States was really interested in dismantling the confrontational structure and ensuring lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, it should demonstrate its sincere impartiality by supporting confederal reunification, he said. The South Korean authorities should respond positively to that proposal, without depending on outside forces. In the spirit of national independence, they should take practical measures for north-south reconciliation and cooperation aimed at confederation, such as the abolition of the “National Security Law”.

MOHAMED ABDO AL-SINDI (Yemen) said that weapons of mass destruction still posed a threat to the world, which necessitated States, especially those possessing nuclear weapons, to immediately reach a decision to accede to the NPT and the CTBT. A spirit of compromise was needed for the success of the NPT Review Conference in 2000.

He called on Israel, the only State in the area that had not done so, to accede to the NPT without further delay, and not to produce, test or acquire nuclear weapons by any means. All its unsafeguarded military installations should be subject to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. That was one of the most important confidence-building measures, constituting a step forward towards the realization of peace and security in the region. His Government reaffirmed support of the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Also, it was fully prepared to make a contribution aimed at achieving complete and general disarmament. His Government supported the declaration of a non-nuclear Africa, while emphasizing that giving non-nuclear States safeguards against threat of or use of nuclear weapons would lend a greater sense of security to non-nuclear States.

He placed great importance on the issue of small weapons. It was extremely important to grapple with the issue, he said, taking the necessary measures to control it. He stood behind calls for the holding of the international conference on this issue in the year 2001. Consideration of the details necessary for the success of such a conference should take place in a way that would not affect the sovereignty of the States.

RICHARD PIERCE (Jamaica), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said 1999 had been another year of unfulfilled commitments and disagreement on all matters concerning nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The continued stalemate on the disarmament agenda would inevitably result in the erosion of progress and a prospect no one dared to contemplate. Efforts to regulate conventional arms, however, showed more positive results. Undoubtedly, those weapons had caused the greatest injury and loss of life.

Chief among them were small arms and light weapons, he said. The proliferation of and illegal trafficking in small arms was of great concern to CARICOM. The illicit arms trade had reached alarming proportions in recent years. One of its most troubling manifestations in the Caribbean had been the linkage with the narcotics trade and a frightening escalation of violence. That had seriously impeded development prospects and increasingly threatened regional and international peace and security. States parties to the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacture of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials -- adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) -- had been committed to harmonizing their national legislation and facilitating information exchange to curb the illegal movement of those weapons throughout the region.

He said that marking imported or confiscated firearms was an important provision of the Convention, since law enforcement officials who intercepted illicit arms and ammunition had great difficulty tracing them back to their source. Small States lacking sophisticated machinery at points of entry, and sufficient resources, were finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the menace of the illicit arms trafficking. In the age of globalization and trade liberalization, tackling the problem successfully meant balancing the elimination of trade barriers with the imperatives of law enforcement. The United Nations Regional Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean had provided an opportunity, through a seminar last June, to look more closely at the underlying causes of that problem.

In that context, he said he welcomed the revitalization of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, which could conduct research seminars and publish materials on small arms and strategies to curb the illegal traffic in those weapons. Also welcome was the proposed international conference on the illicit arms trade in all its aspects no later than 2001. Its scope and agenda should be as broad as possible, so as to promote measures to curb the illicit traffic in arms. Hopefully, States would work together to elaborate concrete measures to address that very important issue.

SAIF AL-BOININ (Qatar) said that, despite various agreements to control weapons of mass destruction, the world still faced many challenges. Indeed, certain States had continued to maintain their nuclear armaments and acquire and develop other types of weapons of mass destruction. That could create a disparity in the balance of regional and international security schemes. The international community must, therefore, take the necessary measures to limit and destroy those weapons. Confidence-building and transparency measures would strengthen existing norms so that resources used for weapons could instead be used for the well-being of humanity.

He said his country had joined all measures at both the regional and international levels to reduce and limit arms, particularly nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as the excessive accumulation of conventional weapons. His country had embraced all measures to stop the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons and hoped for positive results at the 2001 conference on the illicit arms trade. The establishment of peace and security had to be founded on a set of principles, among them the sovereign equality of States and their right to social and economic development.

The interest shown by the international community for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone, particularly in areas of conflict, had been encouraging, he said. His country supported the creation of such a zone in the Middle East and, in that context, sought the compliance of all States in implementing the relevant General Assembly resolutions. Those countries should also ask Israel to accede to the NPT and to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. The possession of those weapons had not led to regional stability in an area prone to instability, violence and a cycle of conflict. The international community, therefore, must actively promote the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and take practical steps to eliminate those weapons.

UMYA THAN (Myanmar), on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), noted the growing nuclear danger and the mounting risk of nuclear and missile proliferation. The nuclear-weapon States were placing greater emphasis and reliance on nuclear weapons, which was not consistent with their declared commitment to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons. He called upon all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to enter into and bring to conclusion negotiations on effective measures of nuclear disarmament.

He reiterated the call for a commencement of multilateral negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a phased programme of balanced, deep reductions of nuclear weapons, leading to the total elimination of those weapons. It was a matter of the highest priority for the Conference on Disarmament to establish an ad hoc committee at the beginning of its 2000 session to commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament. In addition, he stressed the importance of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996, and welcomed the ruling of the Court that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law. All States should sign and ratify the CTBT and accede to the NPT. The ASEAN States urged the 2000 NPT Review Conference to evaluate the results of State parties under the Treaty, and identify areas in which further progress should be sought in the future.

He said that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones was an effective measure of preventing the geographic proliferation of nuclear weapons, and he supported the efforts to establish a single-State nuclear-weapon-free zone in Mongolia. The ASEAN States agreed to support initiatives to enhance international cooperation on demining and the rehabilitation of mine victims, while also noting that every State had the right to self-defence in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The members of ASEAN, he said, welcomed the admission of Malaysia and four other new members to the Conference on Disarmament, and supported the applications of the Philippines and Thailand for Conference membership.

LUIS RAÚL ESTEVEZ-LOPEZ (Guatemala) appealed to all parties to intensify their efforts and muster the necessary political will to overcome the existing deadlock in nuclear disarmament. His country felt greatly satisfied that the Latin American and Caribbean region had pioneered the establishment of nuclear weapon- free zones. It appreciated the significance of those zones, valued the benefits derived from them and it supported all the efforts underway towards their creation in other areas. Those zones could and should become the regional platforms for promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. Illicit trafficking in small arms had increased dramatically over the last few years, he said. That had raised problems in the political, economic and social areas. Countries producing those weapons should impose more effective controls on their manufacture and sale. He supported the holding of a conference on the control of small arms in 2001. Also, the campaigns for de-mining and for removing explosive devices needed to involve the participation of all sectors of society. In reference to the fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, he supported the proposal made by Chile that, given the lack of consensus on the items on the agenda and the date on which it is to be convened, an informal group should be established to carry on consultations, so as to facilitate both the elaboration of the agenda and a consensus on the date of the session.

JEAN DELACROIX BAKONIARIVO (Madagascar) said that the climate of uncertainty in international relations had now become a cause for concern. Serious efforts were required to free the earth from nuclear danger. The impasse in negotiations in the convention on limiting fissile materials, and difficulties with the CTBT showed how far away the world was from the goal of being nuclear-weapon free. Nuclear-weapon States had a special responsibility to free the world of those barbaric weapons. The Review Conference on the NPT was an ideal opportunity to mobilize political will to build a world free of nuclear weapons.

General and complete disarmament under effective international control must remain our ultimate goal in all efforts to establish peace and stability, he said. Entry into force of the Ottawa Convention was an important step forward. It had proven that cooperation might provide beneficial results for humanity. Hopefully, the same spirit would prevail over more selfish, narrower considerations, so that the cause of disarmament could be advanced. Vigorous action was necessary to stop the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons and keep it from devastating populations. He fully supported the holding of an international conference on the illicit arms trade no later than 2001. He endorsed the recommendations of the group of experts in setting the objectives of the conference and supported the idea of choosing a venue in a capital where Africa had broad representation.

He said the current deadlock in disarmament was a summons to have a real commitment to action, to redeem the international community for past mistakes and build a world that based its security not on weapons, but on understanding.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said he was very concerned by events of the past year. It now seemed that weapons of mass destruction would continue to pose a threat to mankind for many years to come. He supported the conference on the illicit traffic of small arms to be held no later than 2001, and urgently appealed for the international community to provide real assistance in implementing a programme of action. His country was particularly concerned at the ravages caused in Central Africa by small arms. The people of his region placed great hope on the work of the United Nations. He added that he was convinced that the principles of the United Nations Charter must remain at the heart of all actions and initiatives for peace, whether regional or worldwide. He called upon the international community to redouble its efforts for peace, concord and solidarity among countries and people.

* *** *