General Assembly Session 50 meeting 14

The Acting President

The Assembly will first hear a statement by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia.

The Acting President

I have great pleasure in welcoming the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia, His Excellency Mr. Janez Drnovsek, and inviting him to address the General Assembly.

Mr. Drnovsek (Slovenia)

It is a great pleasure to see Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral presiding over the important proceedings of the fiftieth session of the General Assembly. We are confident that under his guidance this session will be a great success.

The fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations gives us a reason and an opportunity to reflect on the state of the United Nations and on the question of its ability to adjust to a changing world. This is especially necessary in our times. We have witnessed in the short span of the last few years a variety of changes which have affirmed the global nature of all the basic issues facing mankind.

An array of United Nations conferences and summits has strengthened our common awareness of the global nature of environmental and development issues, including those related to social development. The world-wide tendency towards democracy and the freedom of the individual has strengthened the world-wide cause of human rights. The notion of our common security is being redefined and globalized. It now contains not only military and political, but also economic, social and environmental components.

This session of the General Assembly began less than two weeks after the conclusion of the Fourth World Conference on Women. That conference amply demonstrated the depth and the global nature of the changes that are at hand. The equality of women and the realization of the human rights of women are now among the priority issues on the international agenda.

The United Nations has highlighted the sensitivity of the organized international community to the crucial issues facing the world and the Organization's ability to provide a framework for articulating the main objectives and commitments. It has also demonstrated the ability to formulate principal policy objectives. On the other hand, however, the United Nations has yet to prove its ability to organize effective international cooperation for the realization of voluntary, agreed objectives and commitments. This is a more difficult task, and much is left to be desired in our fulfilment of it.

Furthermore, it is in this context that the question of reform of the United Nations system arises. Reforms are needed to respond to profound changes in international relations and should be much more far-reaching and carefully focused than is currently the case. So, for example, reforms in the economic and social domains should duly take into account the transformation of the world economy and the ever growing importance of market forces, private-initiative entrepreneurship and free trade. In these circumstances there is no place for the creation of unnecessary supra-State structures. What is needed, however, is carefully targeted operational cooperation for development and high-level dialogue capable of assisting Member States to formulate the most effective economic and social policies.

The functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council should become places where decision makers both from Governments and from non-governmental sectors meet and devise specific strategies. New schemes of cooperation among governmental and non-governmental sectors are needed, not least to develop appropriate models for financing the relevant priorities in the fields of environment and social development.

Careful thinking and responsible action are necessary for the strengthening of international peace and security. Each of the diverse priorities in this domain will require serious efforts if satisfactory solutions are to be possible. However, there are also fears that the will to reach them has not yet been mobilized.

Another priority area of United Nations action for the strengthening of international peace and security concerns the necessary reform of the principal United Nations body in this field, the Security Council. An awareness of the need to strengthen the representative character and the effectiveness of the Security Council through expansion of its membership is now generally shared. Slovenia is among those Members of the United Nations which support the idea of appropriate expansion of the number of both permanent and non-permanent seats on the Security Council. This is the majority view now. Furthermore, we believe that in order to reflect adequately the political and economic realities of our time it is important that Germany and Japan should become permanent members of the Security Council.

In the framework of the proposed reform, we should ask ourselves what the future role of the United Nations ought to be. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, after the disappearance of the communist bloc, there is a new situation in the world. The process is basically positive, but in the first years after the big change there are still many questions to be answered. The world must find new stability, a new balance. The danger of regional conflicts and wars has increased. The international community did not find adequate responses to specific situations, such as those in Somalia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

But we cannot simply say that international institutions, including the United Nations, were inefficient in dealing with these situations. The humanitarian endeavour and contribution were significant. Many remarkable efforts were put into solutions -- efforts by individuals and by institutions. But it remains clear that the world must find answers to the new challenges.

The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a very good example. It is an important case in itself, but it is also a very important precedent to be considered in the future. The response of the world to the situation in the former Yugoslavia was slow. Preventive diplomacy failed in this case, as in many other crises, as a result of the normal behaviour of the majority of politicians, who usually give priority to domestic situations and problems. But in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina there is another very important dimension of the problem: a solution or the absence of a solution will influence the future.

How will the post-cold-war world develop? Will there be efficient international coordination, mainly within the United Nations, to take care of such problems and crises? Or shall we go back to the old division of the world and of Europe: the division, in interest spheres, among classic Powers -- the traditional interest spheres of the most important countries?

It is obvious that in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina there was some mix of the two approaches. There was an international effort in the framework of the United Nations, and there were differences among some power States with different opinions about the situation. Bosnia and Herzegovina is where the First World War started, when the old European Powers tried to expand their interest zones. The former Yugoslavia was at the crossroads of many interests and is where so many horrors and killings took place during the Second World War. And there are some signs that the international community has not yet completely overcome such historical divisions and influences.

On the other hand, we cannot say that this historical approach prevailed in tackling the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There was also strong international action in the name of the universal order and universal values, in the name of the protection of human rights, in the name of the protection of the rights of all nations. It is very encouraging that we recently witnessed really serious activity, a very serious peace plan. Diplomatic activity combined with the necessary military action has for the first time provided a realistic chance to stop the war and the killing in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to establish a durable peace and the prospect of stability in the region.

If these activities succeed, they will be an extremely important model for the future, for further development of international coordination in the framework of the United Nations. If the international community is able to solve such an extremely difficult case as that of Bosnia and Herzegovina we shall all be encouraged to direct new energy and efforts towards establishing global instruments and activities to prevent and to solve future crises. The international community will strengthen its institutions in support of universal values and rights.

If it fails in this case the situation will be just the opposite. The road will be open to anarchy, chaos and regional wars, to the rule of the stronger, to the old practices of spheres of interest, and the world will not find a way out of the post-cold-war situation. Instability will increase, and the chances of regional and global wars will be greater.

So we are at a very important moment in history and in the functioning of the United Nations. If the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations is celebrated with success in finally solving the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, this will be the best reward for everybody who, over the past 50 years, has sacrificed his time, his energy or even his life for the establishment of a world of freedom, stability and international cooperation.

Of course, there are many problems to be solved in the future. The United Nations will have to develop efficient instruments of preventive diplomacy and means of handling crises if they occur anyway and of defining the criteria as to when and how to intervene. As is very evident from the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is not always easy to achieve a unanimous definition of "the bad guys" in the world order or to agree upon action against them. But there are human rights criteria, and there are universal values that were developed in the world over the centuries, and especially during recent decades. These have to be respected and implemented.

Luckily, Slovenia was out of the Yugoslav crisis at a very early stage and established its independence four years ago. Now we have a very prosperous State with good democratic performance and very good economic development. Slovenia is considered one of the best countries, if not the best country, in transition to the market and democratic system. We are also prepared to make our contribution to building the international institutions and the coordination that will lead to greater stability in the world. We see our future as being in international institutions like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union. We look upon such bodies not only as economic or defence institutions but also as institutions that should ensure greater stability in the world, greater democracy and the development of universal principles of individual and collective human rights.

But we can see that the way is not easy. Even in our own neighbourhood we face some remnants of the past. This is just one further reason for our insistence on respect by everybody, and not just by the smaller and the weaker countries, for principle in international relations, democracy and universal values. This is the only guarantee of international peace and stability. Clearly, if we start to correct the past and the present on the basis of some historical tendencies of domination, there will be no way of securing the future stability of the world. The solution lies only in overcoming such practices and attitudes and in establishing international cooperation, peace and stability on the basis of respect for each other and for universal human rights.

The Acting President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia for the important statement he has just made.

The President

The next speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, Mr. Shimon Peres, upon whom I call.

Mr. Peres (Israel)

I should like to congratulate Mr. Freitas do Amaral on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly. We are glad that a representative of Portugal, a nation for which Israel has high regard, was elected to that distinguished post.

I would like to express to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a man of our region and a man of peace, our deepest appreciation for his contribution to world peace in general and to the Middle East peace in particular.

Tomorrow, the Jewish people will pray on the day of Yom Ha-Kippurim:

Mr. Peres (Israel)

"In the Book of Life: blessings, peace, a good livelihood, good decrees, salvation and consolation. May you be remembered and inscribed."

Mr. Peres (Israel)

We pray for all humanity, for the whole world.

For us, the United Nations is not just a place of prayer and surely not a platform for speeches. We come here to state our convictions and to announce our commitments. In our address in 1987, I stated on behalf of the State of Israel:

"We have found President Mubarak of Egypt to be a builder of a better life for his people and of bridges for a comprehensive peace in the region." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-second Session, Plenary Meetings, 17th meeting, p. 23-25)

Today, under the leadership of President Mubarak, Egypt is becoming a centre for regional development on the way to hosting the first regional bank of development.

In the same address, we stated:

"An international conference is the door to direct negotiations. Once convened it should lead immediately to face-to-face bilateral negotiations." (Ibid., p. 26)

On 30 October, 1991, the Madrid Conference took place.

In 1992, again we declared:

"The opportunity to select, through democratic political elections, the Palestinian administrative council will enable the Palestinian people to exercise a double measure of freedom: the freedom to govern their own lives and to do so ... democratically." (Ibid., Forty-seventh Session, Plenary Meetings, 20th meeting, p. 48)

Last week, we achieved what we promised.

Lastly, in 1993, we declared again from this rostrum:

"Geographically speaking, we live side by side with the Jordanian Kingdom, and what is so obvious geographically must become clear politically [so that] we can offer the people of both sides of the river full peace, that the Dead Sea can become a spring of new life." (Ibid., Forty-eighth Session, Plenary Meetings, 6th meeting, p. 22)

In October 1994, just one year later, Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty.

Last year, we said here:

"All countries of the Middle East face a choice: to remain politically divided and economically stagnant or to become economically advanced and politically just.

"... We shall try to establish instruments for development: a regional bank, channels for private investment and a framework for regional planning." (Ibid., Forty-ninth Session, Plenary Meetings, 10th meeting, p. 16)

In October 1994, the first Middle East-North African economic summit was held in Casablanca under the splendid presidency of His Majesty King Hassan II. At the end of this month, a second summit will be held in Amman under the auspices of His Majesty King Hussein. At the end of November, the first ground-breaking Euro-Mediterranean conference will be held in Barcelona.

Three years, five promises: all of them fulfilled. I would like to use this occasion to turn to the Syrians and to turn to the Lebanese and ask them to stop hesitating, to stop wandering. They have to look at this record and come in and follow up. The President of Syria has said that from experience he has learned that only through military negotiations and making security the major agenda item can one achieve peace. Sorry: Experience has shown that through negotiation on all levels, embracing all issues without timidity, without fatigue, we can achieve peace. If leaders meet and are not successful at the first meeting, they will have another meeting. How can it be wrong for them to work day and night, ceaselessly, with new ideas and new approaches? They are not wasting the leaders' time; they are wasting the time of the people -- their fortunes, their happiness, opportunities for the younger generation.

We also tell all the countries of the Middle East, not that we want to have a new Middle East, but that we want the Middle East to join in a new age -- for the good of their people, not for the good of Israel. Israel is in good shape because we are no longer living in a world where there are empires of power and colonies of poverty. Poverty and oppression are home-made, not imposed by others. The choice is before every country to become free and prosperous and democratic, like so many nations have done in a relatively short time in Asia, Latin America and in some countries of Africa. It is their choice, their opportunity not just to build a different world but to introduce the new world to their own people.

For us, the United States is not an empire of power. We are not afraid of the United States. For us, the United States is an empire of peace. We need the United States. For us, Russia is going through a process of change. Russia will remain great but will become something different. For us, we welcome the European contribution to other countries east and south of them and the convening of the Barcelona conference to offer the Mediterranean peoples funds and experience to build a new life. We are glad that Japan is expanding its economic horizons and understanding and contributing so that other nations can do so. And we hope that other well-to-do countries in the Middle East, including Arab countries, will help the needy parts of our own region.

May I say that in my best judgement the greatest danger is a combination of high technology and deep hatred, of modern instruments and feudalistic views, and the greatest hope for all of us is a double effort to respect human values and modern education.

Israel itself is in good shape. We are strong militarily: I do not deny it. We have an excellent economy -- an economy of brains, not of material resources. We have absorbed a very large immigration of white and black Jews, white Jews from Russia and black Jews from Ethiopia, and nobody can understand what put Israel in such a relatively good position.

What brought this about is, first of all, the return to the moral choice. By the end of this year -- at the latest at the beginning of next year -- not one Palestinian will remain under our control. For the first time in the history of the Palestinian people, they are educating their children without intervention by us or anybody else. Nobody forces us to do so. We are not weak. We are not poor. We are not under pressure. We have had to take serious risks because terror still continues. The Arab boycott is still intact.

In our own country there is strong opposition to what we are doing. We have had to spend a great part of our budget to make peace -- and yet, despite all this, we decided to make a moral choice: not to dominate another people. We stated in this Assembly that that was our intention. Now we have done it and even politically, as difficult as it may be at home -- because, as a party, we may win historically but we may also lose politically -- but then, winning peace is in our eyes more important than winning elections. Why should you be elected if you do not use the mandate of the people to change the course of your history in a reasoned, moral way?

We believe that the strength of ethical judgement is as important as military exercises or triumphs. We gave up land and produced instead an economy of brains. Today Israel is making out of its brains more than some other countries in our vicinity are making out of oil.

And what we actually expect from the Palestinians is for them to become democratic, to be prosperous, to fight violence and terror, and we are giving our neighbours a simple message: What we can do, everybody can do.

For many years there was a legend that only the North, which is white and wealthy and permanent, is a success story, whereas the South is condemned to backwardness, to poverty, to lagging behind. What has happened in Asia, where the most vibrant economic endeavours are taking place today, and what is happening in Latin America show that the economy has nothing to do with geographical location or the colour of the skin. Make the right choice: serve your people and create a new future.

What we are offering to anyone who is interested is our experience -- open, in a comradely way. We do not want to dominate anybody and certainly not anybody's economy. We did not give up the domination of people to gain domination of markets. And we are suggesting to our neighbours -- and we are happy that they have accepted -- is that the new frontiers -- say, between Jordan and Israel -- will not be frontiers of mines and hostile fences, but an occasion for joint ventures.

The whole rift of Africa, the whole valley which is a desert that separates the Jordanians and us will become, with God's help, a source for work, for development. We will build hotels and schools and desalination plants and parks, and people will be free to move from one side to the other, competing without hating, cooperating without dominating.

We want to do the same about the dividing line between us and the Palestinians: we want to build alongside the line on the West Bank and Gaza eight industrial parks so that the Palestinians will not have to cross the border and go through Israel's checkpoints: instead, work will come to them, and together we shall invest and together we shall develop.

A better economy is the best guarantee of peace. Actually, there cannot be economic cooperation without political understanding. Recently, while we were negotiating we created three zones of security sensibility on the West Bank -- zone A, zone B and zone C. Then we turned to water and electricity and we asked the water and the current to submit to our political wisdom, but the electricity and the water people said that they did not distinguish between A, B and C. Water flows according to nature and not according to artificial agreements, and electric current does not stop at A or B or C. They serve everybody.

Today in the Middle East as elsewhere, the distinction is no longer ideological or religious or national. There is just one distinction between an old, poor, backward economy and a new age where economies are based on technology and science and where the natural resource is schools for the children and not the mines of the Gulf. Everybody can postpone the choice but nobody can escape it.

Our aim is to have peace so as to serve our people; to have education so as to equip our children to take advantage of the new age, to be equal to others and to compete with other children. It cannot remain a peace between leaders: it must become a peace for the people, now and in the future.

I started by showing what has happened in three or four short years. It is a revolution. It is a beginning. We should not stop in the middle. Let everybody pray to the Lord in the language he is used to. Let everybody respect his own tradition, his own heritage. Let everybody respect the special experience of a people, of a nation. But let all of us give up unnecessary hatred, untold suspicion. Let us give up barricading ourselves behind old dogmas and terrible prejudices. Let us help the people and the future. Then the 50 years of the United Nations will offer not just 50 years without war but the coming 50 years with peace and prosperity.

The Acting President

I now call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, His Excellency Mr. Ali Alatas.

Mr. Alatas (Indonesia)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xf4' in position 398: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg006-bk02-pa01">On behalf of the Indon...Organization that is the vehicle of our hope.</p>', 398, 399, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 399
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg006-bk02-pa01">On behalf of the Indon...Organization that is the vehicle of our hope.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 398