Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

2^nd Meeting (AM)

AS GENERAL DEBATE OF 57^TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OPENS, SECRETARY-GENERAL STRESSES

INDISPENSABLE NECESSITY OF MULTILATERALISM

United States President Bush Calls on International Community

To Stand Up for Its Security, Saying Iraqi Government a ‘Grave Danger’

Opening the general debate of the fifty-seventh session of the General Assembly this morning, Secretary-General Kofi Annan strongly reaffirmed the indispensable necessity and enduring relevance of multilateralism and multilateral institutions in efforts to maintain international peace, security and freedom for all.

“I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he told delegations and world leaders.  Recalling the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States, he said the sustained global response to meet that “brutal and criminal challenge” could only be successful by making use of multilateral institutions.  When countries worked together in such institutions –- developing, respecting and when necessary, enforcing international law –- they also developed mutual trust and cooperation on other issues, including ensuring open markets and providing protection from acid rain, global warming or the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The more a country made use of multilateral institutions -- on matters large or small -- the more others would trust and respect that country and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.  “And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organization has a special place”, he said.  When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority -– and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive.  The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.  Highlighting several challenges facing the international community today, he noted that the leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory Council resolutions and urged that country to comply with its obligations.  If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

George Bush, President of the United States, said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of

conflict and fear.  The Security Council had been created so that diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all.  Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance.  “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.”  And as the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger.  To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble.  “And that is a risk we must not take.”  Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction -- a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. 

Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced? he asked.  Or were they to be cast aside without consequence?  Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant?  The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime.  The purposes of the United States should not be doubted –- Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met, or action would be unavoidable.  The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind.  By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand.  Representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism.  India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position.  The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future. 

He went on to say that, unfortunately, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims.  As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation.  His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grass-roots level, improving human rights, rationalizing

(page 1b follows)

economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather had strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all.

Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said.  Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq.  The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq.  It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

He said the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty.  Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) initiative.  Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development.  He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

Also participating in this morning’s debate were Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa; Alejandro Toledo, President of Peru; Georgi Parvanov, President of Bulgaria; Vaira Vike-Freiberga, President of Latvia; Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania; Rene Harris, President of Nauru and Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe.  The Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil also spoke.

The general debate of the fifty-seventh General Assembly will continue this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Background

The General Assembly began its annual general debate this morning following the presentation by the Secretary-General of his annual report.

Statement by Secretary-General

Secretary-General KOFI ANNAN said the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 were an extreme example of a global scourge that required a broad, sustained and global response.  A broad response, because terrorism could be defeated only if all nations united against it.  A sustained response, because the battle would not be won easily, or overnight.  A global response, because terrorism was a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.

Such a response could only succeed if full use was made of multilateral institutions.  “I stand before you today as a multilateralist -– by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty”, he said.

Any government committed to the rule of law at home must also be committed to the rule of law abroad, he said.  All States had a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.  On almost no item on the agenda did anyone seriously contend that each nation could fend for itself.  Even the most powerful countries knew that they needed to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.

Only by multilateral action could it be ensured that open markets offered benefits and opportunities to all; that people in the least developed countries were offered the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty; that protections were possible from global warming, the spread of HIV/AIDS, or the odious traffic in human beings.  Only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States offered any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.  When countries worked together in multilateral institutions –- developing, respecting, and enforcing international law, they also developed mutual trust.  The more a country made use of multilateral institutions, the more others would trust and respect it. And among multilateral institutions, the universal Organization had a special place.  When States decided to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there was no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

He said the existence of an effective international security system depended on the Security Council’s authority –- and therefore the Council must have the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seemed elusive.  The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.

He said the limited objectives of reconciling Israel’s legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs could not be achieved in isolation from the wider political context.  The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement had been defined long ago in Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, as well as in resolution 1397:  land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.  An international peace conference was needed without delay to set out a roadmap of parallel steps.  Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified.

The leadership of Iraq continued to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.  Efforts to obtain Iraq’s compliance with the Council’s resolutions must continue, he said, appealing to all who had influence with Iraq’s leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections.  He urged Iraq to comply with its obligations. If Iraq’s defiance continued, the Council must face its responsibilities.

The Secretary-General also pressed leaders of the international community to maintain their commitment to Afghanistan.  It had been the international community’s shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that had allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda. Afghanistan’s Government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country, and donors must follow through on their commitments.  Otherwise, the Afghan people would lose hope -– and desperation bred violence.

In South Asia, the world had recently come closer than for many years to a direct conflict between two nuclear-weapon capable countries, he said.  The situation, while a little calmer, remained perilous.  The underlying causes must be addressed.  If a fresh crisis erupted, the international community might have a role to play.

In conclusion, he asked all to honour their pledge of two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, “to make the United Nations a more effective instrument” in the service of the world’s people.

Statements in Debate

CELSO LAFER, Minister for Foreign Relations of Brazil, said that Brazil had faith in the United Nations.  The Organization was at a difficult juncture that called for measures sustained by the principles on which the United Nations was founded.  Throughout the eight years of the Presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, certain fundamental requirements had been recurrent, including fostering democratic decision-making and overcoming the governance deficit in international relations.  They also included designing a new financial architecture and providing effective solutions for volatility in capital flows; defending a fair and balanced multilateral trade regime; and affirming the value of human rights and development. 

Brazil could not face those challenges alone, he said.  That was why President Cardoso had sought to strengthen the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) together with South American integration.  The President had also promoted the development of partnerships in all continents, pursuing well-balanced negotiations with countries taking part in the Free Trade Area of the Americas.  Brazil was committed to seeing the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol and the establishment of the International Criminal Court; to furthering the social development agenda and to moving forward on nuclear and conventional disarmament.  The electoral process currently under way in Brazil would strengthen democracy in the country.  Brazil's commitment to the United Nations and to multilateralism would not waver.

The tangled interests that formed a global Web of interdependence could only be managed through authority rooted in multilateral institutions and in respect for international law, he said.  The commitment to negotiated settlements, under the aegis of multilateralism, must be upheld.  Lasting solutions to terrorism, international drug trafficking and organized crime required careful and persistent efforts to set up partnerships and cooperative arrangements consistent with the United Nations multilateral system.  Protectionism and all forms of barriers to trade, both tariff and non-tariff continued to suffocate development economies and to nullify the competitiveness of their exports.  Liberalization of the agricultural sector had been nothing more than a promise repeatedly put off to an uncertain future.  Globalization required reform of economic and financial institutions and should not be limited to the triumph of the market.

The situation in the Middle East underscored how distant the world still was from the international order imagined by the founders of the United Nations Charter, he continued.  Brazil supported the creation of a democratic, secure and economically viable Palestinian State as well as the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  Brazil also defended the right of the State of Israel to exist within recognized borders and of its people to live in security.  Those were essential prerequisites for lasting peace in the Middle East.  The use of force at the international level was only admissible once all diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted.  Force must only be exercised in accordance with the Charter and consistent with the determinations of the Security Council. 

Regarding Iraq, Brazil believed that it was incumbent on the Security Council to determine the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the relevant resolutions, he said.  The exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities was the way to reduce tensions and to avoid the unpredictable consequences of wider instability.  In Angola, the international community must support recent positive developments that opened the way for rebuilding the country and consolidating peace.  The Security Council needed reform so as to enhance its legitimacy and to lay the foundations for more solid international cooperation in building a just and stable international order.  A central feature of reform should be the expansion of the number of members, both in the permanent and non-permanent categories.  The United Nations was the crucial hinge in creating global governance focused on a more equitable distribution of the dividends of peace and progress.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States, said meeting one year and one day after a terrorist attack that had brought grief to his country and the citizens of many others, it was time to turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives -– without illusion and without fear.  While much had been accomplished during the past year in Afghanistan and beyond, much remained to be done –- in Afghanistan and beyond.  Many nations represented in the Assembly Hall had joined in the fight against global terrorism, and the people of the United States were grateful.

He said the United Nations had been born of the hope of a world moving towards justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear.  The founding fathers had resolved that the peace of the world would never again be destroyed by the wickedness of any man.  The Security Council had been created so that –- unlike the League of Nations -– diplomatic deliberations would be more than talk, and resolutions would be more than wishes.  After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, the international community had dedicated itself to standards of dignity shared by all and to a system of security defended by all.  Today, those standards and that security were challenged.

The international community's commitment to human dignity was challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease.  The suffering was great, and the responsibility was clear.  The United States was joining with the world to supply aid where it reached people and uplifted lives.  It would also extend trade and the prosperity it brought.  As a symbol of its commitment to human dignity, the United States would return to the newly reformed United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and would participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance and learning.

He said the international community’s common security was challenged by regional conflicts -– ethnic and religious strife that was ancient but not inevitable.  There could be no peace for either side in the Middle East without freedom for both sides.  America stood committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security.  Like all other people, Palestinians deserved a government that served their interests.  Above all, international security was challenged by outlaw groups and regimes that accepted no law of morality and had no limit to their violent ambitions.  The threat hid within many nations, including his own, he said, and the greatest fear was that terrorists would find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplied them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

He went on to say that all those dangers, in their most aggressive and lethal forms –- the very kind of threat the United Nations was born to confront -- could be found in one place and in one regime.  Twelve years ago, Iraq had invaded Kuwait without provocation, and the regime’s forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources.  Yet, that aggression had been stopped by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.  To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein had entered into a series of commitments.  The terms had been clear and he had agreed to comply with all those obligations.  Instead, he had proven only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges.  By breaking every pledge -– by his deceptions and cruelties -– Saddam Hussein had made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities.  That demand had been ignored.  Through resolutions 686 and 687, the Council demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands.  Iraq’s regime had agreed, but subsequently had broken that promise. Further promises to comply with Council resolutions, on renouncing involvement with terrorism, and ceasing the support of terrorism, had also been broken by the Iraqi regime.

He added that Iraq’s Government openly praised the terrorist attacks of

11 September.  Moreover, that regime had agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to comply with rigorous biological and chemical weapons inspections headed by the United Nations.  It did not live up to those promises, and the inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintained stockpiles of anthrax, mustard gas and other chemical agents.

He went on to say that today, Iraq continued to withhold important information about its nuclear weapons programme.  Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.  He went on to say that Saddam Hussein had subverted the United Nations “oil-for-food” programme, working around the sanctions imposed in 1991 to buy missile technology and military materials.  Hussein blamed the suffering of Iraq’s people on the United Nations, even as he used oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself and armed his country.  As the Assembly met today, it had been almost four years since the last United Nations inspectors had set foot in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s actions, as well as history, logic and the facts, could lead to but one conclusion -– the Iraqi regime was a grave and gathering danger. 

To suggest otherwise was to hope against the evidence, President Bush continued.  To assume that regime’s good faith was to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble.  “And that is a risk we must not take.”  The international community had been more than patient, trying sanctions, the “carrot” of oil for food and the “stick” of coalition military strikes.  But Saddam Hussein continued to defy those efforts and to build weapons of mass destruction.  That regime’s conduct was a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. 

Iraq had answered a decade of United Nations resolutions with a decade of defiance.  “All the world now faces a test”, he said, “and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.”  Were Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced?  Or were they to be cast aside without consequence?  Would the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or would it be irrelevant? 

He said that as a founding Member of the United Nations, the United States wanted the Organization to be effective, respected and successful.  It wanted the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced.  The partnership of nations could meet the test before it by making clear what was expected of the Iraqi regime.  If the Iraqi regime wished peace it must, among other things, immediately and unconditionally disclose, remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and other materials.  It must also release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fates remained unaccounted for.  It must cease persecution of its civilian populations, and immediately end all illicit trade outside the “oil-for-food” programme.  If those steps were taken, it would signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq.  And it would open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represented all Iraqis -– based on human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

The United States had no quarrel with the people of Iraq, for they had suffered too long, he continued.  Liberty for the Iraqi people was a great moral cause and strategic objective.  They deserved it, and the security of all nations required it.  The United States supported political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.  The United States would work with the Security Council on a new resolution to meet the international community’s common challenge.  If the Iraqi regime defied the international community again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold it in account.  The purposes of the United States should not be doubted -– Security Council resolutions would be enforced and the demands of peace and security would be met or action would be unavoidable.  “And a regime that had lost its legitimacy will also lose its power”, he said.

Events could turn in one of two ways.  If the international community failed to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq would continue to live in brutal submission, and the people of the wider region would continue to be bullied. Perhaps horrors even worse than 11 September would be wrought.  But if the international community met its responsibilities, the people of Iraq could shake off their captivity and one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reform throughout the Muslim world.  The international community must stand up for its security and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind.  By heritage and by choice, the United States would make that stand.  And representatives of United Nations Member States had the power to make that stand as well.

THABO MBEKI, President of South Africa, called on the United Nations to assist Africa in realizing its long-deferred dreams.  He said the African Union, the successor to the Organization of African Unity, was the continent’s practical and determined response to its past and present, and the Union’s programme for its revitalization was the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

He called on the African Union, working with United Nations agencies, to give priority to such matters as human resources development and capacity-building, modernizing Africa’s economy and dealing with the intolerable debt burden, the emancipation and empowerment of women, AIDS and environmental degradation, among other things.

He expressed approval for the peace processes taking place in such troubled areas as Angola, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan and noted that elections had been successfully held in the Comoros.  This would bring about the rebuilding of these countries with a better life for all.

Mr. Mbeki also urged a concrete programme of action to implement the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and was equally emphatic about the obligation to give real meaning to the message of hope proclaimed in the Millennium Declaration, as an answer to the murderous attack of 11 September 2001.

The Millennium Declaration, he said, recognized that the central challenge of the world today was to make globalization a positive force for he world’s people.  This had to be ensured so that sustainable development and prosperity for all would take place.

ALEJANDRO TOLEDO, President of Peru, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the international community to fight for democracy and international security.  He also condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the people of the United States on 11 September 2001.  Peru was committed to continued collaboration with the Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee.  Nations must weave a vast network of commitments to cooperate in all areas to defeat terrorism.  Decisive steps should be taken to eradicate terrorism, which threatened peace, security and democracy.

Peace was an essential condition for human development, he said.  Peru promoted limiting defence spending at the regional level with the goal of freeing resources for social investment and the fight against poverty.  Today, more than ever, the international community must commit to the construction of a participatory and efficient system of collective security.  Peru had promoted the Andean Charter for Peace and Security, approved last June by the Andean community.  In the same spirit, Peru had reaffirmed its commitment to creating a South American Zone of Peace and Cooperation and proposed the inclusion of the topic in the agenda of the Assembly's fifty-eighth session.

The construction of peace and good governance was an indispensable prerequisite for the preservation of liberty, he said.  Peru was aware of the urgent need to develop multilateral efforts to strengthen democracies.  He reiterated Peru's proposal to create a Mechanism of Financial Solidarity for the Defence of Democracy and Good Governance.  The time had come to be creative.  Emerging democracies urgently required new resources that would allow them to increase levels of public investment within their regions in order to generate employment and protect them from adverse financial shocks.  Peruvian democracy was not an island in Latin America and the world.  Peru was committed to facing great problems and challenges through the construction of democracy in a more just world.  At the beginning of the twenty-first century, international democracy had a name:  the United Nations.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, President of Pakistan, said that his country was at the forefront of the fight against terrorism.  Determined to prevent its being used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks, Pakistan had interdicted the infiltration of Al Qaeda into its territory and had arrested and deported foreign suspects.  Unfortunately, however, the war against terrorism had been used as a vehicle to spread hatred against Islam and Muslims.  As a first step in creating a sustained dialogue between the Islamic and Western nations, he proposed the adoption of a Declaration on Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation. 

Explaining that the root causes of terrorism were a sense of frustration and powerlessness to redress persistent injustice, he said that while terrorist attacks needed to be condemned, they should not be used to justify outlawing the struggles of a people for self-determination and liberation from colonial or foreign occupation, nor used to justify State terrorism.  India had misused the rationale of war against terrorism against Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, but his country would not be coerced or frightened into compromising on its principled position.  The conflict in occupied Kashmir was being waged by Kashmiris, who needed to be allowed to exercise their right to determine their own future. 

President Musharraf pledged that Pakistan would not start a conflict with India, but would fully exercise its right to self-defence if attacked.  Achieving peace in South Asia required the following steps:  mutual withdrawal of forward-deployed forces by both States; observance of a ceasefire along the Line of Control in Kashmir; and cessation of India’s State terrorism against the Kashmiri people.  In addition, the two parties needed to resume a dialogue that included the people of Kashmir and to agree upon measures for nuclear restraint and a conventional arms balance.  Hindu extremism also needed to be opposed by the international community.

His own Government was focused upon restoring the traditions of a tolerant Islam, he said, and had laid the foundations for sustainable development and democracy in three short years by empowering people through the devolution of decision-making to the grassroots level, improving human rights, rationalizing economic policies and setting up the first Human Development Fund in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme.  National and provincial elections were to be held in 30 days.

Furthermore, Pakistan fully supported the positive changes in Afghanistan and that country's President Hamid Karzai.  The attempt last week to assassinate him underlined the need for an expanded international presence in Afghanistan. Also of concern were the urgent need to revive the Middle East peace process, the importance of the war against poverty and the pernicious aspects of the international banking system, which allowed corrupt elites to stash away money illegally acquired from developing and developed countries. 

GEORGI PARVANOV, President of Bulgaria, outlined what the main tasks of the fifty-seventh session should be.  Attention had to be paid to the Millennium Declaration, the fight against terrorism and the persistent problems of underdevelopment and poverty.  Unfortunately, the United Nations continued to focus instead on regional conflicts.

In that regard, he called for assistance to the people of Afghanistan, especially relief from their foreign debt, and identified as urgent the implementation of Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq.  Firm action had to be undertaken to win compliance.

As a member of the Security Council and a party to all universal conventions against terrorism, Bulgaria commended the work being done to counteract the phenomenon.  But he warned that “the fight against terrorism should not lead to persecution on religious or ethnic grounds or infringe on human rights”.

Turning his attention to developments in South-Eastern Europe, he recommended the strengthening of democratic institutions and human rights along with economic development as the means to prevent conflicts.  He ended his address by expressing support for the reform measures initiated by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to make the United Nations more effective.

VAIRA VIKE-FREIBERGA, President of Latvia, welcomed Switzerland as the newest Member of the United Nations and recognized the concerted efforts of the United Nations and the international community towards creating a climate of peace and security, in which East Timor had become master of its own destiny and would soon join the United Nations.  She also expressed Latvia’s continued solidarity and sympathy with the people of the United States, upon the anniversary of

11 September.  That contemptible act of aggression against the United States was a direct and frontal assault against the civilized world as a whole.

The deep-seated respect for the sanctity of human life was the foundation of civilized society, she said.  Determined to do everything in its power to stem the growing threat of international terrorism, Latvia intended to ratify all international antiterrorist conventions and increase the capacity of its administrative, security, law enforcement and military structures.  Latvia continued to harmonize its national legislation with international and European Union standards, to tighten its control of immigration and the flow of strategic goods, to improve its air and border surveillance capabilities, emergency response procedures and public preparedness in emergency situations.

She noted that Iraq continued to ignore repeated calls to allow United Nations weapons inspectors on its territory, which reinforced credible suspicions that it had sought to produce nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction.  Among other pressing global issues facing the United Nations were organized crime and illegal trafficking, the abuse and exploitation of women and children, endemic poverty and unemployment, drug addiction, disease and environmental pollution.  Continued work was needed on the reduction of poverty and increasing administrative capacity and financial discipline at the United Nations.  However, progress had been made on the reform of peacekeeping operations and collaboration among United Nations institutions.

Committed to sustainable development, Latvia had ratified the Kyoto Protocol and had established a Sustainable Development Council.  She also noted Latvia’s success in changing its status with the United Nations Development Programme from recipient to net contributor.  Now providing technical assistance and expertise to Ukraine, Georgia and Croatia, Latvia had one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and hoped to receive official invitations to join the European Union and the NATO Alliance soon.  Her country had provided humanitarian aid to war-torn areas in the Balkans and Afghanistan, and was committed to the reduction of disparities in income and standards of living essential for the consolidation of peace and security.  Each nation had its own contribution to make to humanity, whose benefit the United Nations was created to serve.

VALDAS ADAMKUS, President of Lithuania, welcomed Switzerland and East Timor to the United Nations family.  Expansion of United Nations membership was very important, and was taking place at a time when the need for global solidarity and partnership was greater than ever.  Terrorism threatened global stability and the very basis of our lives.  Countries must stand united and act together to avert threats to our existence and secure the future of our children. 

He said his country knew the power of solidarity.  Some years ago, Lithuania and eight other countries from Central and Eastern Europe had formed an informal Vilnius Group, which had now grown to 10, to facilitate their accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  Solidarity and mutual support were helping to make that happen.  Hopefully, those countries would soon join the European Union and NATO, thus reinforcing common values in the region as well as common positions and actions in the face of future challenges and threats.

Political stability, however, was not enough, he stressed.  Those countries had also launched regional initiatives and taken other concrete steps to increase contributions to the global campaign against terrorism.  The conference against terrorism was held at the Polish initiative of Poland in Warsaw last November; participating countries were determined to act and cooperate further, thus strengthening European and global security.  In the face of common threats, solidarity must emerge as a consolidating driving force in global diplomacy. 

The tragedy of 11 September reinforced and strengthened the common resolve to combat and counter terrorism, he said.  That should motivate the international community to work together to address the roots of terrorism; respond decisively to non-compliance with Security Council resolutions and gross violations of internationally recognized norms of behaviour; and fight terror worldwide and keep the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.  Regrettably, a Member of the United Nations did not uphold its commitments and the underlying principles of the Organization.  The Iraqi regime must allow unrestricted access for the United Nations inspectors to resume their work.  All pressure should be exerted to ensure that objective.  Indeed, that was a test case of the international community's solidarity and unity.

RENE HARRIS, President of Nauru, conveying condolences to the United States because of the terrorist attacks of last year, expressed full support for anti-terrorism measures contained in Security Council resolution 1373.  He also wished the best future for the International Criminal Court.  Commending the United Nations operations in East Timor, he supported that country's entry into the Organization.

Turning to issues facing the Pacific islands, he called for a universal campaign to address climate change and for the United States and Australia to ratify the protocol.  The health of oceans was another major concern, and he said all users of that resource must work to prevent pollution and unsustainable use.  He expressed concern over transshipment of nuclear waste through Pacific waters, and supported the United Nations action to make the Pacific a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

In other areas, he reiterated his strong objection to the creation of tax "black lists" by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), preferring the development of a cooperative framework for that issue.  He said that Nauru also had done all it could to combat money laundering, yet it was still subject to adverse criticism.  Nonetheless, it had provided relevant information and would continue to work on satisfying key players on the issue.

Finally, he said the most pressing issues currently facing Nauru were energy, freshwater supply and the economy in general, and he hoped for international partnerships in those areas.  He supported reform of the Security Council and further budgetary reform in the United Nations.  He announced the honouring of Nauru's pledge to the Global Health Fund and called on all States to follow suit, underlining the reliance of small States on the United Nations in the post 9/11 world.

ROBERT MUGABE, President of Zimbabwe, informed delegates that his country had completed its fast-track land redistribution programme which began in July 2000.  He said the programme had been undertaken to redress the colonial injustice of dispossession perpetrated by a minority of British settlers in 1890. 

“By assuming its independence in 1980, Zimbabwe had discarded the colonial yoke for all time and, therefore, will never brook any interference in its domestic affairs by any foreign Power”, he stressed.  He added that Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, needed to be informed of this.  Having already waged a revolutionary struggle to secure its independence, Zimbabwe stood ready to defend it in the same way.

A similar problem of outside interference also affected the Palestinian question, one that should be resolved without further delay.  “We note with some concern that some countries wish to arrogate to themselves the right to choose and/or impose leadership in developing countries by sidelining and/or overthrowing democratically elected governments.”  That must be resisted, he said.

Even as he acknowledged terrorism as a threat, he also warned, “The adoption of unilateral measures by some countries to combat terrorism is not only counterproductive but also undermines the mandate and effectiveness of the United Nations.”

He was fully supportive of the emergence of peace in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adding his country was withdrawing its remaining forces there.

In the economic arena, Zimbabwe wanted the decisions of the Monterrey International Conference on Financing for Development and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa, to result in meaningful cooperation among development partners.  The World Trade Organization  (WTO) should also create a level playing field so that exports from developing countries could have access to developed markets.  And, because of the drought in southern Africa, the region was in urgent need of food and other aid.  

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, Prime Minister of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, affirmed that the terrorist attacks of 11 September last year had not weakened, but rather strengthened the resolve of its members to actively seek security and prosperity for all.  For its part, the European Union did not hesitate to support the initiatives of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee and remained committed to finalizing and adopting the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism.

The Millennium Declaration, he said, had given the United Nations renewed impetus to deal globally with conflict prevention, crisis management, humanitarian assistance, post-conflict rehabilitation and development, and disarmament and arms control.  The European Union had worked tirelessly with the United Nations to find solutions in the Middle East and Cyprus, to rebuild Afghanistan, to hold in check the civil war in Sierra Leone and to rebuild Kosovo. 

Iraq remained a major source of concern as well, with regard to weapons of mass destruction, he said.  Unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors was needed, as well as compliance with the obligations contained in the several Security Council resolutions on the situation in Iraq.  The European Union agreed with the United States position that the Security Council urgently needed to address the matter of Iraq.  It also agreed with the Secretary-General’s statement that if Iraq’s defiance continued, the Security Council would need to face its responsibilities.

On the subject of human rights, he urged the adoption of the draft protocol of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the universal abolition of the death penalty.  Sustainable development would not be achieved until women gained full possession of their human rights, including protection from murder and mutilation through a misguided sense of honour.  Hailing the International Criminal Court as an important historic milestone, he commented that people did not need revenge or impunity, but justice and accountability.

He concluded that the greatest global challenge remained the fight to rid the world of persistent poverty.  Recognizing that aid alone would not eliminate poverty, he saluted the African leaders, who had taken an impressive lead with the NEPAD initiative.  Strong political will and partnership was required to translate poverty eradication policies into sustainable development.  He also extended the European Union’s welcome to the new United Nations Members, Switzerland and East Timor.

* *** *