General Assembly Session 51 meeting 67

The Acting President

I give the floor to the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to introduce draft resolution A/51/L.23.

Mr. Azwai (Libya)

The General Assembly has had an opportunity, at a number of its previous sessions, to look into the question of the use by certain developed countries of coercive economic measures against developing countries in order to discourage such countries from taking certain sovereign decisions or to force them to adopt specific policies that do not conform to their choices and convictions.

The Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions that have reflected its grave concern over the harmful effects suffered by the economies of developing countries and their developmental efforts as a result of these coercive economic measures, and over the negative effects of these measures on international economic cooperation and on worldwide efforts to establish an open non-discriminatory trade system.

Through all these resolutions, the General Assembly appealed to the international community to take urgent and effective measures to put an end to the use of coercive measures against developing countries, and called on developed countries to refrain from exercising political coercion as a means of effecting changes in the economic and social systems or in the internal and external policies of other countries. The General Assembly also called on developed countries to refrain from threats to impose commercial and financial restrictions, blockades, embargoes, and other economic sanctions on developing countries, because such practices violate the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and international bilateral and multilateral commitments.

After the adoption of these resolutions, it was hoped that the developed countries would put a halt to coercive economic measures. But instead they persisted and even expanded the scope and magnitude of the measures, escalating them to the extent that the United States recently introduced an unprecedented innovation.

In 1996, the United States enacted United States legislation that punishes foreign non-United States companies which invest more than $40 million to develop petroleum resources in either the Jamahiriya or the Islamic Republic of Iran.

These laws, since their introduction as bills, have rightly caused a wave of international surprise and expressions of opposition and condemnation. That is because they run counter to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, violate the principles of international law and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, impede international efforts aimed at liberalizing world trade, and gravely harm the economies and development plans of developing countries. These negative effects have even affected the substantial interests of many developed countries. Moreover, the laws reflect extreme selfishness on the part of the United States Administration which, having safeguarded its economic interests following the Gulf War, wants to deprive Western and other countries of the remaining important markets in the Middle East. It is not difficult to identify the obvious fallacies in the justification for those laws.

The source of surprise generated by these laws is the fact that they were enacted in a country whose international commitments require it to observe the rules of international law, and not to violate any of those commitments. But, regrettably, it seems that we need to recall that the laws enacted by the United States completely contradict the principle of the territoriality of laws, whose effects should not apply outside the territorial jurisdiction of a State. Nobody here objects to the right of a State to enact laws or to its right to subject its population, both nationals and foreigners, to those laws. However, the right of a State to legislate has certain limits, just like all its other rights. Thus a State may not enact legislation that breaches a rule of international law or any of its international obligations. The laws enacted by the United States breach the norms of international law and violate an international commitment.

The enactment of these laws, which could destroy development in a number of countries, is an attack against the right of States for their physical entity to be respected. That right requires other States not to obstruct the progress of a State or its economic development, whether by direct or indirect intervention, or prevent it from increasing its resources, and not to impede the implementation of its vital projects or hamper its trade by closing international markets to its products. It is not difficult to understand the magnitude of the damage that such a law would do to a country like mine, which is making intensive efforts to develop its resources, both human and material.

Negative reactions rejecting these laws have come from various parts of the world, including the League of Arab States, the European Union, China, Japan, Australia, Russia, Canada and European companies with interests in the Arab region. Even United States companies have denounced such laws, realizing that they could have negative effects on them and, consequently, on the United States people.

The following is an excerpt from The Wall Street Journal dated 25 November 1996:

"Traditionally, the U.S. has used trade sanctions to bring pressure on rogue' states. Since 1941, America -- either unilaterally or in concert with others -- has invoked sanctions more than 70 times. Despite the popularity of this policy option, the success of sanctions has largely been limited. Frustrated with the ineffectiveness of direct sanctions, Congress is adding more fuel to the fire by providing the White House with yet another economic weapon -- called a secondary boycott -- that extends the reach of U.S law to overseas companies that do business with targeted countries. The possible use of this gambit -- some would call it a squeeze play -- has irked friends and provoked pointed talk of retaliation. The potential economic harm it could inflict on our trading relations may ultimately hurt U.S. business and its workers."

The article goes on to state:

"NAFTA partners to the north and south regard such boycotts as interference with their sovereignty. Europeans view America's bullying' its allies as a way to deal with rogue regimes as myopic.

"The U.S., we believe, should avoid using weapons like secondary boycotts to achieve foreign policy objectives. Several leading newspapers have also noted the dangers such boycotts can bring."

Such policies were referred to in the Financial Times of London on 12 July 1996 when it stated:

"Other governments need to remind the U.S. forcefully of a fact that its own legislators appear to have overlooked: it is part of an integrated global economy, on which its own prosperity increasingly depends. ... If it persists in playing the lone cowboy, it will invite reprisals against its own commercial interests abroad. Ultimately, it will undermine the rules governing the conduct of international economic and trade relations. Those rules operate to the advantage of all countries. The U.S. is no exception."

The New York Times of 1 July 1996 stated that:

"Even when deployed on behalf of an otherwise worthy cause, secondary boycotts offend the sovereignty of America's closest allies, invite retaliation and may violate international trade treaties. ... Today's trading patterns involve many countries and need to be applied internationally. But the way to achieve concerted action is by diplomatic persuasion, not by overreaching acts of Congress.

"Global leadership requires moral courage and vision. The United States can lead by example and deed; it need not resort to bullying its friends."

These were statements published in the British and United States press.

In its statement of 23 August 1996, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries expressed its concern at the enactment of the so-called D'Amato law against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The statement said, inter alia:

"The Movement expresses its conviction that the aforementioned legislation is contrary to international law and to the norms and principles governing peaceful and friendly relations among nations. The enactment of the Bill is a blatant violation of the inalienable sovereignty of all States, as it attempts to impose the United States law extraterritorially on the international community. The Non-Aligned Countries remain steadfast in their rejection of actions of this nature against any of its members as reiterated by the Heads of State or Government at the Eleventh Summit held in Cartagena, Colombia."

The general debate in the General Assembly has confirmed the international community's rejection of the laws enacted by the United States. Some heads of delegation have expressed their opinion on those laws in a very frank manner. These included the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who said in his statement before the General Assembly on 27 September 1996,

"Even as we are asked to submit to GATT rules and the WTO, we find one country blatantly undermining the WTO by enacting extraterritorial laws that must be submitted to by all nations and their companies on pain of excommunication." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Plenary Meetings, 12th meeting, p. 9)

Mr. Hervé de Charette, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, offered the point of view of France and Europe on the United States law in clear terms. In his statement before the Assembly on 25 September 1996, he said that

"Since 1945, international trade has been a powerful growth factor, contributing to a large extent to the expansion of the industrialized economies and to the success of so-called emerging countries. But here too we must have rules of the game, acknowledged at the world level, so as to develop and regulate trade, ensure that it is fair and prevent unilateral conduct.

"I should like to mention here the dangers of unilateralism. Unilateralism: behind this technocratic word lurks the temptation to impose the law of the strongest at the expense of dialogue and negotiation.

"France and Europe cannot accept that one country, even if it is the most powerful, attempt to regulate world trade by itself by means of decisions that have extraterritorial scope. The World Trade Organization does not allow it, and no one should doubt the firmness of French and European reactions were such measures actually to be implemented." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Plenary Meetings, 8th meeting, p. 21)

Just as clear were the words of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland on the same law in the memorandum attached to his statement before the General Assembly on 24 September 1996:

"The European Union is deeply concerned about the extraterritorial elements contained in the recent legislation adopted by the United States concerning Cuba, Iran and Libya. The European Union reaffirms its right and intention to react in defence of its interest against the possible extraterritorial effects of this legislation."

The United States has circulated a paper full of misconceptions to justify its request to delegations not to support the draft resolution submitted by the Jamahiriya under this item. The United States affirms that, with the D'Amato law, it aims to put pressure on the Jamahiriya to respond to Security Council resolutions, including the call on Libya to surrender the two Libyan citizens suspected of involvement in the bombing of the Pan Am flight for trial. The United States also maintains that the law will help to deprive both the Jamahiriya and Iran from a source of income which, it claims, could be used to finance international terrorism and obtain weapons of mass destruction.

It is well known that the Jamahiriya has never objected to the trial of the two persons suspected of involvement in the explosion of the Pan Am flight. I do not want to go into the details of this problem here, but I would like to state, in brief, that the Jamahiriya has, from the beginning, taken steps for the trial of the two suspects, based on the provisions of the 1971 Montreal Convention. However, the United States and its partner, the United Kingdom, which are both parties to this Convention, have impeded the trial for lack of cooperation with the Jamahiriya. The Jamahiriya has proposed numerous initiatives to hold the trial, but the two partners have frustrated all these initiatives. Now, we have the initiative of the League of Arab States for the two suspects to be tried at the International Court of Justice at The Hague in accordance with Scottish law and by Scottish judges. The only impediment to the implementation of this initiative is the objection of the two partners. They should give the Security Council a chance to discuss the initiative of the League of Arab States to put an end to this problem and, in turn, the suffering of a whole people who have borne the brunt of the sanctions for five years. The dispute over the venue of the trial of two persons suspected of involvement in the Lockerbie incident -- and I repeat "suspected" because it is not yet proven -- should not be lengthened. Rather, the Council should put an end to the suffering of the victims' families, which has been prolonged by the persistence of their countries and the use of their tragedy for political purposes, aimed at bringing a country to its knees, even though it refuses to kneel.

As for the claim that the law aims to deprive the Jamahiriya of a source of income that might be used to finance terrorism, once again I do not want to go into the details of our position on terrorism and our various initiatives contained in United Nations resolutions. We would like to reaffirm that our hand is extended for cooperation in combating this phenomenon, since we have been its foremost victims. The persistent repetition of this accusation automatically and bluntly will not serve any useful purpose.

If the wild imagination of the United States has convinced it that there are Libyan efforts to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, and that by this law the United States wants to obstruct these efforts out of concern for the non-proliferation of these weapons, then we request that it ask the Security Council to establish a commission to inspect all countries of the region, including Israel. This would be acceptable provided that any kind of weapon of mass destruction found in any country be destroyed. The world would then be sure which country obtains weapons of mass destruction and which country encourages and supports it.

Further, the United States paper circulated to delegations here added another allegation, namely that Libya's conduct directly threatens the United States' national security and is thus a clear threat to the international community. This is an over-exaggeration in every way. Granted, the United States is a major Power which plays a big role on the international scene, but it is not the international community. So let us see who threatens the national security of the other.

We have no hostility towards the United States or its people. It is the other way round. We have not frozen United States assets. We have not prohibited any commercial dealings with the United States. But it did all of this to us in 1986. We did not use bombers to attack United States cities and never killed defenceless civilians. It is the United States that hit Tripoli and Benghazi and bombed them in 1986, killing defenceless civilians in their sleep in the dark of night. We hatch no plots against the United States and its leadership. But the United States does against Libya. We have not come to the United States' coasts with our fleets and our forces. It is the United States which does that. Which of us, then, jeopardizes the national security of the other, we or the United States? Is it our conduct that threatens international stability and should be changed?

Another misleading assertion in the United States document is that the new law adds flexibility to the implementation of United Nations policy. That may be true within the United States, but it greatly confuses the international community because it implies that whenever a member of that community wishes to trade with another member, it should first consult with the United States to find out exactly what can and cannot be done. Is that the flexibility that the United States document refers to? If the document is not referring to trade, what is it referring to? We are not alone in thinking that the United States document refers to free trade: that is the perception of the entire international community, of which we are a member. There is already creeping confusion in trade relations because of the measures that the European Union had to take to confront United States legislation against Cuba.

This is not the first time the United States has enacted laws that contradict the principles of international law. But this time the action is more serious, and greater in magnitude and scope. In January 1981, the United States Government imposed comprehensive sanctions against the Jamahiriya, froze Libyan assets, prohibited all commercial and financial dealings with Libya and prevented Libyan students from pursuing scientific studies. It also enacted laws imposing coercive economic measures against Cuba and Iran. A quick review of United States relations with other countries shows that most have been subjected to similar coercive policies as a means of political and economic compulsion.

In introducing this item, the Jamahiriya is not trying to divert attention from any issue, as the United States document claims. The Jamahiriya is aware of all its international commitments, adheres to the rules of international law and eagerly supports the implementation of the principles and purposes of the United Nations. Libya is not in confrontation with the international community, as the United States document tries to depict. It is the United States itself which is in confrontation with the international community. It is the United States which has violated the law of nations by enacting an extraterritorial law and imposing sanctions on foreign companies and persons that, now and in the future, work and invest in the Jamahiriya, Iran and Cuba. The international community has unambiguously rejected those laws.

The Jamahiriya is not in confrontation with the international community, even with regard to the Lockerbie incident. It has met all the requirements of Security Council resolutions. The only thing remaining to be done is to try the two suspects in the manner I referred to earlier. Libya's highly flexible positions have received the support of the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and a majority of the members of the Security Council. The fact that the United States managed somehow to get the Security Council to adopt those resolutions does not mean that the Jamahiriya is in confrontation with the international community. That scenario is a common one here in these times.

Enactment of the law is a unilateral action taken by the United States in isolation from the international community. It is directed, in the first instance, against countries with vital interests in the Jamahiriya and Iran, and it damages the vital interests of any country that would like to enter those markets in the future. That confirms categorically that the United States acted alone in order to present the international community with a fait accompli. This belies its claim that it prefers multilateral action. If it really did, it would have listened to the universal voice of reason when the law was still a bill, and would have heeded the early warnings of the European Union.

The coercive economic measures and extraterritorial laws adopted by the United States of America are in violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, the norms of international law, the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and the rules of the World Trade Organization. They gravely harm the economies of developing countries and the vital interests of many developed countries, and have been rejected by the entire international community. Those measures and laws should be rejected by the General Assembly in direct and clear terms in order to forestall the chaos and economic devastation that those measures and laws will cause throughout world.

We must tell the United States with one unhesitating voice that this is a grave mistake and it should be corrected. The United States does not have sovereignty over other States, and that the international community has not given it a mandate to regulate world trade unilaterally. That is exactly what the Jamahiriya wanted when it requested the inclusion of this additional item on the agenda of the General Assembly, and that is what is reflected in the draft resolution contained in document A/51/L.23.

The draft resolution has nothing to the do with the sanctions imposed by the Security Council on the Jamahiriya. Rather, it focuses on the unilateral laws enacted by a certain State imposing sanctions on other countries and their nationals. This is made clear in paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, which does not single out any State or incident, but rather calls for the repeal of such measures, regardless of whether the State that enacted them is developed or developing, large or small.

The draft resolution does not attempt to defend any special interest, but seeks rather to defend the interests of a large sector of developed and developing countries. It attempts to defend the general interests of the international community. It speaks of principles, not details. It aims to protect us against the turbulence and chaos that could soon be caused by extraterritorial laws enacted unilaterally to impose coercive economic measures. The draft resolution attempts to confront the unilateral decisions that have begun to jeopardize the international community in many areas. To deny that would be to deny facts and the provisions of the draft resolution before the Assembly.

The text before us is not a draft resolution for Libya. It is a draft resolution for the international community and must enjoy full support lest we find ourselves saying, as in the fable, that we were devoured on the day the white bull was devoured.

Mr. Bohayevsky (Ukraine)

As we all know well, the inadmissibility of the use or the encouragement of the use of economic or any other coercive measures inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations as a means of political and economic compulsion is enshrined in the basic documents of this Organization, primarily in the Charter, the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and a number of resolutions of the General Assembly.

In spite of the fact that resort to unilateral measures of economic compulsion not sanctioned by the world community for the purpose of gaining political dividends has been repeatedly deplored in the highest international forums, including those held under United Nations auspices, we note with regret that this practice remains in the political arsenals of some States, which use it to interfere in the internal affairs of other States and, in certain situations, for so-called material support of direct territorial claims.

That is why our delegation strongly believes that this problem should not be treated as relating exclusively to the developing countries. It is similarly acute for the new sovereign States that are experiencing today a complicated and sometimes very painful period of achieving self-determination and establishing their own models of national development.

This process is accompanied by objective economic difficulties caused by the specifics of the transition to a market-based economy. It is quite obvious that during this period these countries are becoming particularly vulnerable to measures of external economic compulsion on the part of more economically powerful States, especially those with which the countries in transition have strong economic and political ties. In our view, the ideological basis and the source of such policies with regard to new independent States is the reluctance of certain political circles to reckon with the objective course of history and the realities of today.

On behalf of my delegation let me avail myself of this opportunity to emphasize once again that this policy has no prospects and endangers the peace and stability of the relevant countries and regions. We therefore call for the unconditional and complete exclusion of measures of economic compulsion from the arsenals of the foreign policy of all States, regardless of whether they are large or small. In this context, it is especially important that all States remain committed to the obligations they enter into under specific agreements at the multilateral, regional, subregional and bilateral levels.

Now more than ever -- when new forms of international cooperation are emerging and when there is a marked increase in globalization and in the interrelation of economic activities, liberalization of trade, active cooperation in the field of science and technology, and the flow of finances and services -- it is necessary to end the use of economic relations for the purpose of political and economic compulsion. And therefore there is an urgent need to create an effective mechanism within the United Nations system that would adequately address the emerging problems which so far have not been faced either by individual States or by the world community as a whole.

Unfortunately, the existing practice shows that the positive influence of international trade and economic relations on the prospects of peace and security cannot be taken as absolute, for we can recall many examples of confrontations, including military ones, between economically interdependent States. As is well known, external economic dependence has a critical level and limit beyond which States may begin to lose their sovereignty.

Under its mandate, the Economic and Social Council, which bears the main responsibility for the coordination of international cooperation in the social and economic spheres, has no way of effectively intervening in the new global problems of the world's economic development. Again, we are of the view that Article 65 of the United Nations Charter, on the need for close cooperation between the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council has not been fully realized. Therefore, what we need today is the establishment of an appropriate mechanism within the United Nations system that would protect the economic sovereignty of Member States.

In our opinion, the first step towards this goal, as we have had an opportunity to state earlier before this body, could be the implementation of the proposal to create a council for economic security which was made by the President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, at the Special Commemorative Meeting of the General Assembly on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations. We invite all Member States to exchange views on this proposal, which could be a good starting point for elaborating an appropriate mechanism. As we see it, such a council could play the role of "nerve centre", taking the most important decisions with regard to the provision of operational needs and undertaking complex consideration of issues related to the economic security of countries and even whole regions. In such a capacity, the economic security council -- as the proposed body could be named -- would contribute substantially to the observance of the fundamental principles of respect for national independence, non-interference in internal affairs, and the elimination for all time of the use of economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion.

The United Nations has made many efforts to establish a new economic order. Much still has to be done if we seek a really new economic order, which cannot be separated from the goal of strengthening the economic security of each Member State, and if we want to ensure the further implementation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.

Mr. Kharrazi (Iran)

I believe the initiative taken by the delegation of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to propose to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion" is a timely one. It allows us to address the issue of unilateral extraterritorial measures in a comprehensive and objective fashion.

The impermissibility under international law of unilateral sanctions is uniformly recognized by the international community. The adoption of coercive economic measures lies only within the mandate of the United Nations in particular situations where there exists a threat to peace or a breach of peace. Moreover, several relevant principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations provide a solid basis for the Organization to offset the use of unilateral sanctions by individual States.

According to General Assembly resolutions, unilateral coercive measures violate the principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of other States, as well as in the exercise of the sovereign rights of States. In this regard, both the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Interference in the Internal Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty, adopted on 21 December 1965, and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted on 12 December 1974, stipulate that

"No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights." (resolution 3281 (XXIX), art. 32)

The Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty goes on to say that such measures also cannot be used to "secure advantages of any kind" from another States (resolution 2131 (XX), para. 2)

Furthermore, the General Assembly has denounced on various occasions unilateral economic coercion as a means of achieving political goals. Resolutions entitled "Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries", adopted at the forty-fourth and fiftieth sessions of the General Assembly, is a prominent example of a series of United Nations reactions to such unlawful actions.

The imposition of coercive economic measures and the approval of domestic legislation for the horizontal escalation of such actions with extraterritorial implications also contradicts established international trade law, including the regulations of the World Trade Organization.

The United States of America imposed various forms of economic coercive measures against 79 foreign countries between 1979 and 1992. This is a statistic which indicates that the United States resorts to such unilateral measures more than any other State by a wide margin. Such unilateral United States measures have recently taken on dangerous dimensions. The enactment by the United States of new laws which contravene the principle of the territoriality of national laws significantly affects the sovereignty of other States and the legitimate interests of companies and persons falling under their jurisdiction. Recent unilateral sanctions by the United States against third parties investing in or doing business with Cuba, Libya and Iran are the most prominent in this category.

A series of formal sanctions have been imposed or reimposed by the United States on the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s and 1990s, including most of the sanctions that had been revoked under the declaration signed between the two countries in 1981. During this period, Iran's efforts to promote peace and security in the region and its endeavours to enhance economic and social development at the national and regional levels invariably faced overt and covert United States sabotage. The United States does not cease its efforts to try to persuade others to adopt similar measures against Iran, mostly through concocting a number of baseless allegations to justify its imposition of unilateral actions.

Fortunately, the international community has demonstrated its responsibility and sobriety by standing firm in rejecting the extraterritorial application of domestic United States legislation. The European Union deemed the extraterritorial application of United States legislation to be without any basis in international law. At its 20 November 1996 meeting, the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body decided, at the request of the European Union, to establish a special panel of experts to examine the compatibility of recent United States acts against Cuba with the norms governing that Organization and with several provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

At their annual meetings in 1996, foreign ministers both of the Non-Aligned Movement and of the Group of 77 called for the immediate elimination of all forms of coercive economic measures with negative, extraterritorial impact on the development of developing countries and which undermine the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the free flow of trade and investment. The recent ministerial meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference adopted similar positions.

It is also worth mentioning that the consideration of this crucial issue by all the recent major international conferences and summits is a manifest illustration of its multidimensional character, which adversely affects all countries and the world economy as a whole.

To conclude, while my delegation believes that the draft resolution before us (A/51/L.23) could be improved substantially, we call upon Member States to adopt it unanimously. In so doing they will demonstrate to the outside world the continued commitment and efforts of the international community, vis-à-vis the realization of the goals and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

I should like to say first how deeply grateful we are to the sisterly delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for having taking the initiative to include this important item on the agenda.

The increasing use of coercive economic measures as a means of economic and political compulsion has led to an increase of tension in international economic and political relations, which poses a threat to international peace. Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. According to the Charter, the General Assembly must discharge certain essential duties, including the promotion of international economic cooperation, and cooperation in the social, cultural, educational and health fields. It must also promote respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms for the whole of mankind.

In the light of these responsibilities, the General Assembly must consider any measures taken which contravene these principles and study means to redress them. Experience has shown that coercive economic measures are an odious means which will never convince people to give up their inalienable right to make their own economic, political and social choices. However, this weapon has unfortunately proven to be effective. The results of this are the suffering of innocent civilians, the halt of economic development in the target country -- and to a lesser extent among its international trading partners -- and economic and political instability.

The use of this weapon is also a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. These include the sovereign equality of States, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, the right of people to choose their own economic and political regimes, and the right to development and to participate in international economic relations on the basis of mutual interests.

These coercive economic measure, whether imposed unilaterally by a given State or through influencing multilateral institutions, are backed up by a policy which leads to nothing. I point out that States that resort to coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion are trying to find a way to legitimize their policies by having such measures imposed by multilateral international agencies. This is the case of Iraq. This is now the case of Cuba, as attempts are under way to impose a multilateral sanctions regime.

Furthermore, section 4 of the D'Amato law, entitled "Multilateral Regime", provides for the integration of coercive economic measures into multilateral systems.

Contradictory trends have been emerging at an increased rate in today's world. On the one hand, the international community and the absolute majority of States Members of this international Organization are trying to ensure the primacy of law and to build a world characterized by justice, prosperity and equality of rights. On the other hand, a minority, impelled by a desire for hegemony and a thirst for power, believe themselves above the law. This minority does not hesitate to use all possible means to serve their own interests. The majority must therefore tell the minority that this is not the right path. The draft resolution introduced by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is an attempt to do this.

Coercive economic measures imposed on Iraq have prevented our country from making a contribution to the Organization; as a result, we have lost our right to vote. Had this not been the case, we would have voted in favour of this draft resolution, entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion", which appears in document A/51/L.23.

Mr. Núñez Mosquera (Cuba)

Cuba's position on unilateral coercive economic measures against developing countries is widely known, as is the view of the international community, as expressed in numerous international instruments and resolutions of the General Assembly.

Although it has been said euphemistically that the cold war is now over, we are still living amid an international order in which the major economic and political Power, taking advantage of its predominant position, is continuing unilaterally to apply coercive economic measures against developing countries -- not because of the danger these countries pose to the national security of that Power, as is usually alleged, but because of its manifest intent to impose upon those countries certain of its foreign policy objectives.

Although this fact is well known, it must be reiterated: the imposition of these kinds of measures by one country against another is a clear violation of international law and seriously damages the principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. Moreover, the unilateral application of these measures contravenes the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other international instruments governing relations among States, such as the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

In both Declarations, the international community recognized that no State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State, and that no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind.

The application of the kind of measures referred to in the draft resolution introduced today by the delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya not only represents an attack on the identity of the State concerned and on its political, economic and cultural elements, but also affects other sensitive areas such as the ability of the peoples suffering from those unilateral policies fully to enjoy their human rights.

In this connection, the Commission on Human Rights itself has determined that the application of unilateral coercive economic measures has a negative impact on social and humanitarian indicators in developing countries, and prevents the peoples subjected to such measures from fully enjoying their rights.

Moreover, the Commission on Human Rights Working Group of Governmental Experts on the Right to Development described the application of coercive measures as a stumbling block to the application of the right to development.

Furthermore, pursuant to resolution 1994/47 of the Commission on Human Rights, the Secretary-General informed that body, in his report contained in document E/CN.4/1995/43, that application of unilateral coercive measures is incompatible with the principle of international cooperation, has an adverse impact on the economies of developing countries suffering under the measures and constitutes a serious violation of the human rights of the individuals, groups and peoples affected.

General Assembly resolutions 44/215, 46/210, 48/168 and 50/96, on economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries, also show that most States Members of the United Nations reject the application of unilateral measures.

It is therefore the view of the delegation of Cuba that States Members of the United Nations should be deeply concerned at the fact that one of them persists in the unilateral application of such measures, thereby contravening, deliberately and repeatedly, the aforementioned international principles, norms and instruments.

This concern should be all the greater in view of what appears to be a new set of coercive economic measures, applied by that same Member State and directed against not only the political and economic stability of the country affected but also against the sovereignty of third States.

The United States' promulgation of laws such as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, whose extraterritoriality has already elicited broad international reaction, as was seen in the Assembly's general debate on this issue, seems to be ushering in an era in which attempts are being made to rule the world from the Capitol in Washington.

Passage of the so-called D'Amato-Kennedy Act, which would impose sanctions on foreign investors in Iraq and Libya, regardless of their nationality or of the jurisdiction of the companies they may work for, for the purpose of preventing those countries from continuing to develop their oil industry, is bereft of any moral or legal justification, both in respect of its political motivations and of the means decided upon to enforce this whim of the United States Congress.

On the threshold of the new millennium, the emergence of unilateral coercive measures of an extraterritorial nature, entails yet another serious danger in the context of our increasingly interdependent world. The risks posed by a country -- no matter how powerful it may be -- in unilaterally reserving the right to undermine the discipline of multilateral trade, which was recently brought about with the completion of the Uruguay Round and the emergence of the World Trade Organization, for reasons totally alien to trade issues, must be confronted appropriately and resisted by the international community. The impact of those policies on the lives of the more vulnerable peoples and sectors of the populations in the countries suffering from the policies must not be overlooked and ignored by this Organization.

For all of these reasons, Cuba will vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document A/51/L.23.

The Acting President

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/51/L.23.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote before the voting. May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Hoey (Ireland)

The European Union wishes to take this opportunity to reiterate its rejection of attempts to apply national legislation on an extraterritorial basis. We have also rejected attempts by any country to coerce others into complying with unilateral commercial measures. We stress that international coercive measures can be imposed on States only by, and under the authority of, the Security Council, in accordance with Article 41 of the United Nations Charter.

In this regard, we wish to mention the legislation that provides for the application of legal sanctions to companies and individuals outside its national jurisdiction, including provisions designed to discourage third country companies from trading with or investing in specific countries. Measures of this type violate the general principles of international law and the sovereignty of independent States.

The European Union reaffirms its right to react as it deems appropriate to any extraterritorial measures that appear to contravene international law. The European Union must, however, make a firm and unmistakable distinction between measures imposed unilaterally by individual States and those that are undertaken with the full authority of the Security Council, and in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. The European Union has accordingly concluded that it is unable to support the draft text and will abstain in the vote that is about to be taken.

Mr. Çelem (Turkey)

The vote to be cast by Turkey on draft resolution A/51/L.23 does not relate in any way to any position or policy adopted or pursued by the country presenting it. Our vote should not be construed as expressing any approval or endorsement of such a position or policy of the country submitting the draft resolution. Turkey is basing its vote only on its opposition to the practice of extraterritoriality -- in other words, any practice that extends the application of a country's legislation outside its jurisdiction. The application of extraterritorial measures not only runs counter to international law but also has a negative impact on the economic interests of third countries and on the free flow of international trade.

In the view of my delegation, coercive economic measures can be imposed only by the United Nations in conformity with its Charter. Our vote in favour of the draft resolution before us simply reflects these considerations.

Mr. Gnehm (United States)

The Government of Libya, which for years has victimized others with its financial and material support for international terrorism, now comes before the General Assembly seeking to portray itself as a victim of international sanctions. Clearly, its aim is to decrease the pressure brought to bear upon it by the community of nations for its unacceptable behaviour. We need to keep this broader context in mind as we consider Libya's draft resolution A/51/L.23 on "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion".

Libya would have United Nations Member States believe that this draft resolution is about free trade and the right of States to choose their own models of economic development. It is not. It is aimed at distracting attention from Libya's obstinate refusal to comply with its obligations under Security Council resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). These resolutions were imposed because of Libya's involvement in two terrorist bombings of civilian aircraft -- Pan Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772 -- and its continued support for international terrorism.

By introducing this draft resolution, Libya seeks to break out of the international isolation imposed by the world community and to lend some legitimacy to its campaign to end terrorism-related sanctions, including those imposed by the Security Council. These sanctions, most recently reviewed this month, have been left in place without change through 14 consecutive reviews. Libya must not be encouraged to believe that anything less than full compliance with Security Council resolutions can end its confrontation with the international community.

We believe it would be wrong for the General Assembly to reward Libya's continuing defiance of the United Nations by supporting this draft resolution. For that reason, the United States will be voting against the draft resolution, and we urge others to do the same.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/51/L.23.

The Acting President

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to make statements in explanation of vote. I would remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Ms. Hamilton (Australia)

My delegation abstained in the voting on draft resolution A/51/L.23 because the draft resolution fails to draw a clear distinction between measures imposed unilaterally by individual States and those measures that are undertaken pursuant to resolutions of the Security Council under the United Nations Charter.

Australia has, in this and other forums, made clear its opposition to national legislation that seeks to impose extraterritorial sanctions, determined unilaterally, on companies and individuals of third countries.

Mr. Powles (New Zealand)

New Zealand takes this opportunity to reiterate its long-standing opposition to the application of national legislation on an extraterritorial basis. We regard as completely unacceptable and in violation of international legal principles any attempts by a country to restrict the freedom of companies from a third country to trade with any other State or to invest in another State. New Zealand has already made its position on this issue clear in the General Assembly during this session.

That said, we cannot support any attempt by a country to challenge in the General Assembly sanctions that have been imposed on it under the Charter of the Organization. As measures imposed by the Security Council, these sanctions enjoy full legitimacy and require the support of the membership of the Organization. This distinguishes them clearly from the unilateral, extraterritorial measures just mentioned.

The draft resolution does not make a sufficiently clear distinction between these two concepts. For this reason, New Zealand could not support the draft resolution and therefore abstained in the voting that has just taken place.

Mr. Jansen (Canada)

Canada has abstained in the voting on the resolution just adopted by the General Assembly. Canada has always taken a vigorous stand against measures with extraterritorial effect that seek to constrain the freedom of investment and trade of third countries. While the resolution we have just considered calls for the repeal of unilateral, extraterritorial laws that impose sanctions on other States, it fails to make clear the essential distinction between those measures undertaken with the full authority of the Security Council and in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, and those imposed unilaterally by individual States. As a result, we were not able to lend our support to this text.

Mr. Dlamini (Swaziland)

My delegation has opted to abstain, and we want to explain our reason for abstention. This does not mean that we agree that any State has a right to coerce another to achieve its purposes. But in this context, we have opted to live by our policy.

The Kingdom of Swaziland believes in the policy of goodwill, and, accordingly, we shall stand by that policy. But if a younger brother is being hit by another brother, and he seeks refuge with his elder brother, that does not mean that the elder brother has a right to kick the buttocks of the younger brother. And scripturally, we believe that blessed are those who are betrayed when two people are at war.

We in Swaziland believe that whenever certain parties have a contentious issue, we must open our house and listen to both sides and arbitrate. Hence, today we have felt that we should abstain because we are looking for a way in which the parties that may be affected here can eventually live like brothers and like Members of the United Nations. Otherwise, our abstention means no condonation, but it means that we should sit down and talk and become friends and Members of the United Nations.

Mr. De Rojas (Venezuela)

We voted in favour of this resolution because we agree with the main elements it contains.

However, we would have liked to see included in the operative part of the resolution a reference similar to the one in the preambular part relating to the need to promote the development of friendly relations among nations and cooperation in resolving economic and social problems.

We believe that operative paragraph 1 can be understood only in the context of States' full compliance with the commitments they have entered into under the Charter of the United Nations, international law, democratic principles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Hajayandi (Burundi)

I shall be very brief. I have asked to speak to express loudly and clearly my delegation's reasons for voting in favour of this resolution.

First, Burundi is in principle against any measure that unjustly affects the population of any State under whatever pretext. Secondly, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to remind the international community that my country is suffering from an inhuman, illegal and unjust economic blockade imposed by the neighbouring States under a pretext involving my country's domestic policies -- a question that has already become nugatory.

My country believes that it has no lessons in morality or democracy to teach any other State. Like many others, we are involved in trying to find political and democratic stability, and sabotaging us economically will not help us achieve the noble goals of lasting peace and security.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 159?