General Assembly Session 54 meeting 4

The President

In a letter contained in document A/54/333/Add.2, the Secretary-General informs me that, since the issuance of his communications contained in document A/54/333 and addendum 1, Sierra Leone has made the necessary payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter.

May I take it that the General Assembly duly takes note of this information?

The President

The General Assembly, in accordance with the decision taken at its 3rd plenary meeting on 17 September 1999, will now take up agenda item 10, entitled "Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization", to hear a presentation by the Secretary-General of his annual report.

I give the floor to the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General

I am deeply honoured to address this last session of the General Assembly of the twentieth century and to present my annual report on the work of the Organization. The text of the report is before the Assembly.

On this occasion, I should like to address the prospects for human security and intervention in the next century. In the light of the dramatic events of the past year, I trust that the Assembly will understand this decision.

As Secretary-General, I have made it my highest duty to restore the United Nations to its rightful role in the pursuit of peace and security, and to bring it closer to the peoples it serves. As we stand at the brink of a new century, this mission continues. But it continues in a world transformed by geopolitical, economic, technological and environmental changes whose lasting significance still eludes us. As we seek new ways to combat the ancient enemies of war and poverty, we will succeed only if we all adapt our Organization to a world with new actors, new responsibilities and new possibilities for peace and progress.

The sovereign state, in its most basic sense, is being redefined by the forces of globalization and international cooperation. The state is now widely understood to be the servant of its people, and not vice versa. At the same time, individual sovereignty -- and by this I mean the human rights and fundamental freedoms of each and every individual, as enshrined in our Charter -- has been enhanced by a renewed consciousness of the right of every individual to control his or her own destiny.

These parallel developments -- remarkable and in many ways welcome -- do not lend themselves to easy interpretations or simple conclusions. They do, however, demand of us a willingness to think anew about how the United Nations responds to the political, human rights and humanitarian crises affecting so much of the world; about the means employed by the international community in situations of need; and about our willingness to act in some areas of conflict while limiting ourselves to humanitarian palliatives in many other crises whose daily toll of death and suffering ought to shame us into action.

Our reflections on these critical questions derive not only from the events of the past year but from a variety of challenges that confront us today, most urgently in East Timor. From Sierra Leone to the Sudan to Angola to the Balkans and to Cambodia, and then to Afghanistan, there are a great number of peoples who need more than just words of sympathy from the international community. They need a real and sustained commitment to help end their cycles of violence and launch them on a safe passage to prosperity.

While the genocide in Rwanda will define for our generation the consequences of inaction in the face of mass murder, the more recent conflict in Kosovo has prompted important questions about the consequences of action in the absence of complete unity on the part of the international community. It has cast in stark relief the dilemma of what has been called "humanitarian intervention": on one side, the question of the legitimacy of an action taken by a regional organization without a United Nations mandate; on the other, the universally recognized imperative of effectively halting gross and systematic violations of human rights with grave humanitarian consequences.

The inability of the international community in the case of Kosovo to reconcile these two equally compelling interests -- universal legitimacy and effectiveness in defence of human rights -- can be viewed only as a tragedy. It has revealed the core challenge to the Security Council and to the United Nations as a whole in the next century: to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights -- wherever they may take place -- should not be allowed to stand.

The Kosovo conflict and its outcome have prompted a wide debate of profound importance to the resolution of conflicts, from the Balkans to Central Africa to East Asia. And to each side in this critical debate, difficult questions can be posed.

To those for whom the greatest threat to the future of international order is the use of force in the absence of a Security Council mandate, one might ask, not in the context of Kosovo but in the context of Rwanda, if, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, a coalition of States had been prepared to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but did not receive prompt Council authorization, should such a coalition have stood aside and allowed the horror to unfold?

To those for whom the Kosovo action heralded a new era when States and groups of States can take military action outside the established mechanisms for enforcing international law, one might ask: is there not a danger of such interventions undermining the imperfect, yet resilient, security system created after the Second World War, and of setting dangerous precedents for future interventions without a clear criterion to decide who might invoke these precedents and in what circumstances?

In response to this turbulent era of crises and interventions, there are those who have suggested that the Charter itself -- with its roots in the aftermath of global inter-State war -- is ill-suited to guide us in a world of ethnic wars and intra-State violence. I believe they are wrong.

The Charter is a living document whose high principles still define the aspirations of peoples everywhere for lives of peace, dignity and development. Nothing in the Charter precludes a recognition that there are rights beyond borders. Indeed, its very letter and spirit are the affirmation of those fundamental human rights. In short, it is not the deficiencies of the Charter which have brought us to this juncture, but our difficulties in applying its principles to a new era -- an era when strictly traditional notions of sovereignty can no longer do justice to the aspirations of peoples everywhere to attain their fundamental freedoms.

The sovereign States that drafted the Charter over a half century ago were dedicated to peace, but experienced in war. They knew the terror of conflict, but knew equally that there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in pursuit of peace. That is why the Charter's own words declare that "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest". But what is the common interest? Who shall define it? Who will defend it -- under whose authority and with what means of intervention? These are the monumental questions facing us as we enter the new century. While I will not propose specific answers or criteria, I shall identify four aspects of intervention which I believe hold important lessons for resolving future conflicts.

First, it is important to define intervention as broadly as possible, to include actions along a wide continuum from the most pacific to the most coercive. A tragic irony of many of the crises that continue to go unnoticed and unchallenged today is that they could be dealt with by far less perilous acts of intervention than the one we witnessed recently in Yugoslavia. Yet the commitment of the international community to peacekeeping, to humanitarian assistance and to rehabilitation and reconstruction varies greatly from region to region and crisis to crisis.

If the new commitment to intervention in the face of extreme suffering is to retain the support of the world's peoples, it must be, and must be seen to be, fairly and consistently applied, irrespective of region or nation. Humanity, after all, is indivisible. It is also necessary to recognize that any armed intervention is itself a result of the failure of prevention. As we consider the future of intervention, we must redouble our efforts to enhance our preventive capabilities, including early warning, preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament.

A recent powerful tool of deterrence has been the actions of the Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia. In their battle against impunity lies a key to deterring crimes against humanity. With these concerns in mind, I have dedicated the introductory essay of my annual report to exploring ways of moving from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention. Even the costliest policy of prevention is far cheaper, in lives and in resources, than the least expensive of armed force.

Secondly, it is clear that sovereignty alone is not the only obstacle to effective action in human rights or humanitarian crises. No less significant are the ways in which the States Members of the United Nations define their national interest in any given crisis. Of course, the traditional pursuit of national interest is a permanent feature of international relations and of the life and work of the Security Council. But I believe that as the world has changed in profound ways since the end of the cold war, our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit.

A new, more broadly defined, more widely conceived definition of national interest in the new century would, I am convinced, induce States to find far greater unity in the pursuit of such basic Charter values as democracy, pluralism, human rights and the rule of law. A global era requires global engagement. Indeed, in a growing number of challenges facing humanity, the collective interest is the national interest.

Thirdly, in the event that forceful intervention becomes necessary, we must ensure that the Security Council, the body charged with authorizing force under international law, is able to rise to the challenge. As I said during the Kosovo conflict, the choice must not be between, on the one hand, Council unity and inaction in the face of genocide, as in the case of Rwanda and, on the other, Council division and regional action, as in the case of Kosovo. In both cases, the States Members of the United Nations should have been able to find common ground in upholding the principles of the Charter and in acting in defence of our common humanity.

As important as the Council's enforcement power is its deterrent power. Unless it is able to assert itself collectively when the cause is just and when the means are available, its credibility in the eyes of the world may well suffer. If States bent on criminal behaviour know that frontiers are not the absolute defence and if they know that the Security Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, they will not embark on such a course of action in expectation of sovereign impunity.

The Charter requires the Council to be the defender of the common interest, and unless it is seen to be so in an era of human rights, interdependence and globalization, there is a danger that others could seek to take its place. Let me say that the Council's prompt and effective action in authorizing a multinational force for East Timor reflects precisely the unity of purpose that I have called for today. Already, however, far too many lives have been lost and far too much destruction has taken place for us to rest on our laurels. The hard work of bringing peace and stability to East Timor still awaits us.

Finally, after the conflict is over, in East Timor as everywhere, it is vitally important that the commitment to peace be as strong as the commitment to war. In this situation, too, consistency is essential. Just as our commitment to humanitarian action must be universal if it is to be legitimate, so our commitment to peace cannot end with the cessation of hostilities. The aftermath of war requires no less skill, no less sacrifice and no fewer resources in order to forge a lasting peace and avoid a return to violence. The Kosovo Mission and other United Nations missions currently deployed or looming over the horizon present us with just such a challenge.

Unless the United Nations is given the means and the support to succeed, not only the peace, but the war, too, will have been lost. From civil administration and policing to the creation of a civil society capable of sustaining a tolerant, pluralist, prosperous society, the challenges facing our peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace-building missions are immense. But if we are given the means -- in Kosovo, in Sierra Leone and in East Timor -- we have a real opportunity to break the cycles of violence, once and for all.

We leave a century of unparalleled suffering and violence. Our greatest, most enduring test remains our ability to gain the respect and support of the world's peoples. If the collective conscience of humanity -- a conscience which abhors cruelty, renounces injustice and seeks peace for all peoples -- cannot find in the United Nations its greatest tribune, there is a grave danger that it will look elsewhere for peace and for justice. If it does not hear in our voices, and see in our actions, reflections of its own aspirations, its needs and its fears, it may soon lose faith in our ability to make a difference.

Just as we have learned that the world cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place, so we have also learned that intervention must be based on legitimate and universal principles if it is to enjoy the sustained support of the world's peoples.

This developing international norm in favour of intervention to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter will no doubt continue to pose profound challenges to the international community. Any such evolution in our understanding of state sovereignty and individual sovereignty will, in some quarters, be met with distrust, scepticism and even hostility. But it is an evolution that we should welcome.

Why? Because, despite its limitations and imperfections, it is testimony to a humanity that cares more, not less, for the suffering in its midst; and a humanity that will do more, and not less, to end it. It is a hopeful sign at the end of the twentieth century.

The President

I thank the Secretary-General for his presentation.

We have concluded this stage of our consideration of agenda item 10.

The President

Before giving the floor to the first speaker in the general debate, I should like to remind members of the decision taken by the General Assembly at its 3rd plenary meeting, on 17 September, that congratulations should not be expressed inside the General Assembly Hall after a speech has been delivered.

In this connection, may I remind members of another decision taken by the Assembly at the same meeting: that speakers in the general debate, after delivering their statements, would leave the Assembly Hall through Room GA-200, located behind the podium, before returning to their seats.

I should also like to remind representatives that in accordance with the decision taken by the General Assembly at its 3rd plenary meeting, the list of speakers will be closed on Wednesday, 22 September 1999, at 6 p.m. May I request delegations to be good enough to provide estimated speaking times that are as accurate as possible. This will facilitate the work of the General Assembly.

I should now like to recall for the attention of Members paragraph 21 of the annex to resolution 51/241, whereby the General Assembly indicated a voluntary guideline of up to 20 minutes for each statement in the general debate. Within this given time-frame, I should like to appeal to speakers to deliver their statements at a normal speed so that the interpretation may be provided properly.

The first speaker in the general debate is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, His Excellency Mr. Luiz Felipe Lampreia. I give him the floor.

Mr. Lampreia (Brazil)

Brazil congratulates you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. Your personal record in defence of democracy and human rights, which was forged in the struggle of the people of Namibia for liberty and self-determination, offers an inspiring example for our work.

As a sister nation of Uruguay, we take pride in the work done by your predecessor, my friend, Minister Didier Opertti. I would like to express the appreciation and gratitude of the Brazilian Government for his decisive role in presiding over the fifty-third session.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan is equally deserving of special recognition. In these times of far-reaching and uncharted challenges before the international community, his sense of proportion and the strength of his serene leadership have been valuable aids in the search for realistic and innovative solutions. We appreciate and support his endeavours in the cause of peace, development and justice.

The Brazilian Government warmly greets the admission of Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga, which have just joined the United Nations family.

Year after year, for over half a century, we have gathered here to discuss and debate the issues of our time. Year after year, the representatives of the Member countries of the United Nations have come to this rostrum to set forth their vision of global affairs and to provide analysis and to propose solutions.

As the requirements of our societies become ever greater over time, there grows a sense of an ever-widening gulf between our words and our deeds, a distance that serves only to feed the scepticism of some and the pessimism of others.

Whenever an unfolding crisis and its human tragedy break through international indifference and become newsworthy, it is to the United Nations that the public opinion of our countries looks for meaningful answers.

Unfortunately, however, the international community feels compelled to act in a coordinated fashion, mobilizing the necessary resources and political will, only when long-festering problems threaten to get out of hand, making a satisfactory solution all the more difficult.

The upshot is a sense of frustration and impatience towards the United Nations. This may be because the necessary initiatives are in the end adopted outside the United Nations framework, as was the case in Kosovo. Or it may be because the measures agreed are not up to the concrete needs, as we have seen in East Timor. Or it may even be because the United Nations finds itself once again confronted, as in Angola, with well-known conflicts of catastrophic proportions that the international community has failed to address in a timely manner.

Why is it that certain predicaments generate intense mobilization of ways and means, but not others? Why does human suffering in some parts of the globe fuel greater indignation than when it takes place elsewhere? The plight of Angola and that of East Timor offer two glaring examples of what amounts to a clear pattern of one-sided and unequal attention.

In Angola, UNITA's refusal to abide by the Lusaka Protocol and hardened positions threaten to rekindle in all its intensity the same civil war that over a quarter of a century has caused incalculable suffering to millions in that country, particularly the defenceless and the deprived.

In Angola, which has special bonds with Brazil, the international community is squarely faced -- despite the limited international press coverage -- with an immense political challenge and a humanitarian disaster of shocking proportions. Urgent and priority action is called for. The Security Council can no longer allow its resolutions to be blatantly ignored, as has been the case.

No less urgent -- and in this case the United Nations is now actively engaged -- is the task of helping guarantee the right of the East Timorese people to decide their own future as an independent nation, a decision unmistakably voiced in a free ballot. Brazilian society, which shares linguistic, cultural and historic ties with the Timorese, joined in their rejoicing when the vote returned a resounding verdict for independence. There was consternation in Brazil at the violence against our brothers in East Timor and at the loss of innocent lives that followed.

Brazil cannot accept, nor can Brazilian citizens understand, that the self-determination of the Timorese people is not fully assured. We therefore believe that the multinational force authorized by the Security Council -- a force in which Brazil was determined to participate from the very outset -- will put a stop to the atrocities committed since the popular ballot and will be able to re-establish the necessary conditions for a peaceful transition to independence.

Over the past decade, Latin America, long viewed as a land of backwardness and dictatorships, has fashioned a new international image for itself through the transformations it has undergone. The return to democracy in our countries has had a decisive role in this, as did our important achievements in fostering respect for human rights -- although much remains to be done. The adoption of consistent economic policies, in turn, has made it possible to overcome the endless dilemmas that had ensnared us, and to put an end to the inflationary spiral that had brought so much uncertainty and injustice to our citizens.

Let there be no doubt that the difficulties that we experienced, on and off, throughout 1999 will not cause us to lose faith and relinquish our achievements. For a few days, or maybe weeks, at the beginning of the year, Brazil was dubbed by some "the sick man of Latin America". It was thought that we might slip back into the trap of high inflation, that we would experience deep recession, that we would once again resort to the panacea of stoking short-term growth and return to the old boom-and-bust cycles of the past.

Yet we have arrived at the end of the century with an inflation rate under 8 per cent. We fully expect to embark on a course of sustained annual growth of more than 4 per cent and are set to bring to completion a large-scale modernization programme by means of important reforms in tax, fiscal and social security matters. President Fernando Henrique Cardoso will not flinch in his determination to lay the groundwork for our country to become modern, economically fit and dynamic, as well as socially more just and politically mature.

With the advent of democracy, Brazil and Argentina have developed the solid friendship that binds our peoples, and have over a short space of time built a lasting monument to integration. Our bilateral agreements in the field of nuclear cooperation are exemplary and a stabilizing force in the region and worldwide. The Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR) -- which our two countries joined Paraguay and Uruguay in establishing and with which the democracies of Bolivia and Chile have associated themselves -- has fundamentally altered the economic face of the hemisphere and indeed of the world. Our integration process is not directed against anyone, but, on the contrary, seeks to strengthen our historical ties both within and beyond the Americas. Both individually and within the framework of MERCOSUR our countries have become a powerful force in the drive to set the international trade system on a more open, balanced course, one that no longer aids and abets protectionist privileges at the expense, more often than not, of developing countries.

Democracy has made it possible for the countries of Latin America to provide mutual assistance -- without undue and unsolicited foreign interference and in a spirit of collaboration -- whenever there is a jointly perceived threat to the institutional stability of one of them. Thanks to democracy, the countries of our region have successfully solved disputes that for long disturbed the harmony of the more peaceful and stable of continents. At the end of last year, Ecuador and Peru, with the diplomatic support of Brazil, Argentina, Chile and the United States, signed in Brasilia the agreements that put an end to their long-running boundary dispute. Thus, despite all manner of difficulties, Latin America is transforming itself into a tightly knit entity that is politically, economically and socially integrated.

It is in this spirit of integration, and in the abiding awareness that we belong to one family, that Brazil feels closely attuned to the various efforts at renewal under way in the region. The elections scheduled for next October in Argentina will no doubt confirm the political vitality of this great neighbour of ours and guarantee the necessary economic conditions for stability and reinvigorated growth. These same favourable expectations, we are sure, will be fulfilled at the elections to be held in Chile and in Uruguay this year, and in Mexico next year. Their outcome will most certainly underline the democratic character of Latin America.

The political and economic achievements of Bolivia since the 1980s in overcoming obstacles that 20 years ago seemed insurmountable are a further indication of how much our region has changed for the better. Peru as well has gained international recognition through its resounding successes in reversing the adverse economic trends of past decades and in the war against terrorism and drug trafficking. This capacity to overcome obstacles is equally noticeable in Ecuador, where, with the support of international financial institutions, political forces will -- through democratic and constitutional channels -- undertake the needed reforms to overcome the present crisis. Paraguay, in turn, successfully dealt with a delicate political crisis at the beginning of this year and is moving steadily along the road of democratic institution-building and economic development. Brazil, as always, will continue to decisively support Paraguay in that endeavour.

Guyana provides a further demonstration, not only of our commitment to upholding and fostering democratic values, but equally of the integrationist spirit that inspires us. It is our hope that Suriname will join in the efforts and achievements of the region in bringing about these positive changes. The transformations that Venezuela is undergoing have drawn great international attention. This process of change must be respected, for it clearly and legitimately reflects the Venezuelan people's desire for renewal. The expression of this aspiration through institutional channels is the best guarantee that the changes under way will stay on the track of respect for the norms, rights and duties that define democracy.

Brazil is also confident that the Government of President Andrés Pastrana, in Colombia, will persevere in its endeavours to bring peace to this kindred nation. Undue foreign interference would only aggravate an already complex situation, which it is up to the Colombians themselves to overcome.

It is on the success of our neighbours, in which we trust, that hinges the success of the Brazilian people and its Government in solving their own problems and in overcoming their own challenges, which are neither few nor small.

Organized crime and drug trafficking today pose a major challenge to democratic societies. They clearly represent a serious threat to the security of national institutions and to citizens directly, who pay with their own lives the intolerable price for this scourge of our times. The spiralling stockpile of and trade in small arms is closely linked to organized crime and drug trafficking. As its citizens find their lives daily at risk because of contraband firearms, Brazil gives the utmost priority to tackling this question. At the regional level we approved the important Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisitions. We would like this Assembly to endorse the proposal to hold an international conference on illicit arms trafficking in all its aspects. Similarly, Brazil attaches considerable importance to the work being done on a draft convention against transnational organized crime.

In turn, the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction remains a threat to the security and even the survival of humankind.

All actions contrary to the aims of the non-proliferation regime should be firmly condemned by the international community. At the same time, it behooves the nuclear-armed States, as well as the threshold States, to move towards the complete and irreversible elimination of nuclear armaments. For this reason, Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden will once again submit, at this session, a draft resolution on a new agenda for nuclear disarmament. The draft resolution, which seeks to pave the way for a constructive dialogue on this issue, is grounded on a realistic and balanced appraisal of the nature of the nuclear disarmament process.

Our countries' democratic institutions and the international organizations, particularly the United Nations, face fundamental challenges today. Our countries are confronted daily with economic difficulties and acute social grievances, such as poverty and extremes of inequality, which heighten impatience: impatience with economies unable to grow at a rate compatible with faster improvement of the well-being of societies; impatience in the face of vulnerability to crises and to turbulence in international markets; and impatience with political processes that sometimes appear slow to respond to the legitimate and pressing demands of citizens. It is vital, however, that this collective impatience be voiced and guided through democratic channels.

Brazil's commitment to democratic institutions and to the primacy of law also applies to international relations. At the outset of his second term of office, to which he was elected last October by an absolute majority of Brazilian voters, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso made it clear that:

"The rule of law is the only admissible foundation for the international order. Should unilateralism and the use of force come to be accepted as organizing principles of international relations, in the long term it will be more rational to side with the instruments of power politics rather than to strive for order and to abide by law. If we are to see a truly new world order emerge, one of its cornerstones must be the acceptance that multilateral institutions -- not least the Security Council -- are the source of legality and legitimacy for those actions that guarantee peace and the peaceful resolution of disputes".

Our societies await, again with increasing impatience, seeing multilateral organizations, and in particular the United Nations, show themselves to be up to the challenge of playing a meaningful -- in fact, crucial -- role in establishing an international order attuned to the shared aspirations and values of humankind as a whole.

The road ahead calls for renewal and change. If the Governments of the world desire a strong and effective United Nations, they must not only change how they think and act with respect to this Organization, but they must also think and act to bring about change in the Organization. This is what is at stake. This is the challenge before us.

The President

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Republic of South Africa.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of South Africa, His Excellency Mr. Thabo Mbeki, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Mbeki (South Africa)

On behalf of our Government and in my capacity as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, I wish to extend our sincere congratulations to you, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, on your election as President of the General Assembly. I would also like to thank you for the kind remarks you made about my country as you assumed your high position.

We have worked together for many decades. Thanks in good measure to your statespersonship, as neighbours we live together in peace and have joined hands as equals to ensure the all-round fulfilment of both our peoples. These experiences convince us that you will discharge your responsibilities as President of the General Assembly in a manner that will help humanity make our common world a better place for all. We are pleased that you will be working with the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, who has demonstrated unquestionable commitment to the realization of the attainment of the goals of the Organization.

The Charter of this Organization and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provide all of us with the vision towards which we should strive. At the time these documents were adopted, they reflected the international determination to ensure that the catastrophe occasioned by the rise of fascism and Nazism should never recur. We recall them today because we believe that the time has come for determined measures to be taken to ensure that they inform what happens in the common world we all share. The central message they contain is expressed in the words of the preamble to the Declaration:

"the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom".

We believe that the time has come for all of us to ensure that we work together to reconstruct human society in a manner consistent with this perspective. We further believe that what we have said constitutes a particular and historic challenge to those who occupy positions of political leadership in the modern era, those who, like us, will have the privilege of addressing this General Assembly. Only time will tell whether we have the moral and intellectual courage to rise to this challenge.

But this we feel we can say: that conditions exist in the world today for us successfully to pursue the vision contained in the United Nations documents to which I have referred. What may be in short supply is the courage of the politicians, as opposed to an abundance of good-sounding rhetoric. What are these conditions of which we speak? The cold war has come to an end. There is no sign anywhere of an ideology-driven contest among super-Powers which dictates that each should seek to destroy the other in order to protect itself. It is true that a number of countries still possess weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, which constitute a threat. The only logical way to address this is vigorously to sue for universal disarmament and the destruction of such weapons.

Secondly, I believe it would be correct to say that the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have opted for democratic forms of government. Having learned from their own experiences, the nations have turned their backs on dictatorship. Of course, we cannot say that such dictatorships do not exist or that no attempt will be made in the future to establish them. But we can make bold to say that these exceptions prove the rule, rather than disprove the proposition we are trying to advance.

The combination of these two factors should lead to three conclusions, at least. The first is that there should be no need on the part of any country to seek to establish spheres of influence as a supposed necessary condition for the advancement of its national interests.

Secondly, the very sustenance of democracy across the globe requires that in every democratic country the ordinary people should feel that they actually do enjoy the right to determine their destiny. In other words, no country should be required to restrict its exercise of this right simply because some other more powerful country dictates that this should be so.

Thirdly, these circumstances create the possibility for a more democratic system of international governance, as would be reflected by a correct restructuring of this very Organization. In any case, the process of globalization necessarily redefines the concept and the practice of national sovereignty. The frontiers of that sovereignty are being pushed back, especially as regards the smaller countries of the world, such as our own. As this happens, inevitably, so does it become necessary that a compensatory movement take place towards the reinforcement of the impact of these countries on the system of global governance through the democratization of the system of international relations.

The developments we have spoken of also suggest that perhaps, and depending on what we all do, humanity has never had as bright a prospect for durable world peace and security as it does today. The mere spread of democracy throughout the world speaks of a greater commitment among the nations to the resolution of national and international conflicts by peaceful means.

I am certain that when President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the current Chairperson of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), addresses the Assembly, he will report on the important decision recently taken at the Algiers summit of the OAU to exclude from its ranks, with effect from the next summit, all military regimes that may still exist on the African continent. A further decision was taken to assist such countries resolutely to move towards a democratic system of government.

The developments on which we have commented would suggest that the Organization has a responsibility to focus especially on the objective contained in Article I, paragraph 1, of its Charter, which says,

"to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace ... and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace".

This, we believe, imposes a solemn and supreme responsibility on the United Nations to work for the prevention of conflicts and to endeavour to resolve them so that a durable peace can be established. Sometimes, our response to conflicts has been to wait for them to develop into violence, and even wars, and subsequently to intervene through costly peacekeeping operations. These, at times, serve to freeze those conflicts, perpetuate polarization and make their timely resolution more difficult.

Moreover, the requirement on the United Nations to make such interventions to prevent the outbreak of hostilities imposes an obligation on the United Nations that it should be seen by Governments and peoples as a truly even-handed interlocutor and peacemaker. It can attain this only if it works genuinely to

"develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples",

as stated in Article I, paragraph 2, of its Charter.

If indeed we are seriously committed to these critical objectives of peace and democracy in the world, then we have no excuse to permit the further postponement of the meaningful restructuring of the United Nations. If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that what is blocking progress is the desire to accommodate what are perceived as new power relations, to reinstitutionalize relations of inequality within the United Nations in an amended form. This is based on the thesis that the institutionalization of such relations has precedence over the Organization's founding principle of respect for the principle of equal rights among the nations.

In the situation of the cold war and the prevalence of dictatorship in many countries, the politics of power might have been seen as the only path to survival. The management of the world today through the exercise of such power, however modified, will itself subvert the objectives of democracy and peace, spawning pretenders to the throne at global, continental and regional levels.

Simultaneously as the United Nations focuses on the critical question of the prevention of conflict, so must it attend to such issues as the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the implementation of the ban on anti-personnel mines, the removal of mines in those countries which face this problem and the control of the proliferation of small arms. Of course, none of these proposals gainsay the need for the United Nations to act with all necessary vigour to help end all existing conflicts of which it is seized, including those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, Western Sahara, East Timor, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Kosovo and others.

We started off with a quotation from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which speaks of affirming the dignity and worth of the human person, the promotion of social progress and securing a better life for all. We argued that conditions exist for movement towards the realization of the objectives spelt out in the Declaration. It is a matter of common cause among all of us that the levels of poverty, ignorance and disease that continue to afflict billions around the globe constitute a direct denial of the dignity and worth of the human person to which we have committed ourselves. I am certain that we would also agree that the process of globalization has also been accompanied by growing inequality within and among countries. We have also seen how movements of short-term capital have produced disastrous economic consequences in some countries.

As with the challenges of peace and democracy, it is our firm belief that sufficient resources exist within the world economy actually to address the social progress and the better life for all for which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls. Further to this, science and technology continue to develop in such a way that it is difficult to believe that, taken together with the large concentrations of capital that characterize the world economy, the means do not exist within human society to make the required impact on poverty, ignorance and disease. Indeed, it can be argued quite rationally that international peace, democracy and prosperity are a necessary condition for the further rapid growth of the world economy, and with it the further expansion of the corporations, both small and big, which require global markets.

Similarly, the revolution in information and communication technology, a critical driver of the process of globalization, both enables and calls for higher levels of education and standards of living among the billions who constitute the human population. However, it is clear that there is no automatic or inherent mechanism within the operation of the markets to enable both capital and technology to make the sort of impact we are talking about on all countries of the globe. When we say this we should not be taken to mean that we are contemptuous of all that has been said about what each country needs to do to create the conditions conducive to investment and technology transfers. Nor should it be taken to mean that we are reopening the debate about the role of markets in the allocation of resources. What we are saying is that the functioning of the markets does not and cannot exclude conscious interventions being made, both to increase economic opportunities and to raise the standards of living and the life possibilities of many in the world denied their human dignity by the scourge of poverty.

In his interesting book Living on Thin Air, the British author Charles Leadbeater, writes:

"The new (knowledge driven) economy needs a mobilizing vision and institutions fashioned to make it real. Bit by bit, our institutions are changing through reform, reorganisation and restructuring -- but the process is much too slow, haphazard and piecemeal -- it must become more conscious, imaginative and radical."

Once more, the matter turns on the will of the political leaders actually to discover among themselves the moral and intellectual courage to do what is correct and necessary. What is correct and necessary also requires that in this field as well, which affects socio-economic matters, we should review the functioning of all multilateral institutions, including those that belong within the United Nations family. This should be done to ensure that these too reflect the very necessary imperative of the democratization of the international system of governance.

The United Nations documents to which we referred earlier give us a starting point. Accordingly, we believe that there is no need for anyone among us to rediscover a new vision that would inform our actions to build a new world which affirms the dignity and worth of the human person. What is necessary is that we match the beliefs we profess with the necessary action.

We speak of action that will practically address the related issues of peace, democracy and development.

I am certain that such a practical programme of action would meet the aspirations not only of the members of the Organization of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement, of which we are a member. It would also respond to the most deep-seated feelings of the peoples of the developed North, who can have no interest in conflict, oppression and poverty, even if these occur beyond the borders of their own countries.

It also goes without saying that the democratic systems in which we operate would also require that, through committed advocacy, we should secure the support of the electors for what should be a programme of action of the United Nations for the twenty-first century.

The evolution of human society has presented the world leaders who will stand at this rostrum with new possibilities to move our globe a giant step forward towards a new actuality, of which the poor and the powerless dream every day. We will be betraying those millions if we do not act to turn their dream into reality. Let future generations not say that because of the force of inertia we failed to act.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of South Africa for the statement he has just made.

The President

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, His Excellency Mr. Abdelaziz Bouteflika, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Bouteflika (Algeria)

So it is Africa, through two of its most devoted and eminent sons, that has the particular honour of leading the United Nations into the new millennium. I refer to you, Mr. President, a worthy freedom fighter for our sister nation, Namibia; I now salute your well-deserved election to the presidency of the General Assembly. I refer also to Mr. Kofi Annan, our Secretary-General, to whom the international community is indebted for the great perseverance and fervour he has shown in his promotion of the purposes and principles of the Charter and in strengthening the role of the United Nations.

I am very moved to address this Assembly, because, by electing me 25 years ago to the presidency at its twenty-ninth session, the General Assembly was even then showing its esteem for and interest in Africa and its consideration for all of those generations of freedom fighters who, like those of my country, have assumed the historic responsibility of making a decisive contribution to the advent of a better world. Twenty-five years have passed during which the inexorable movement towards freedom has followed its course, toppling the last bastions of colonialism and racial segregation, and enshrining the right to sovereign equality of States and the right of peoples to development, self-determination and independence.

At the same time, a new situation has emerged marked by greater interdependence between nations, which, as they have gradually become more and more aware of the unity of their destinies, can no longer afford to live in isolation nor remain indifferent or insensitive when something happens to one of their members.

I have therefore come to speak about this common destiny, on behalf of Africa and Algeria, at a time when our session has chosen the theme of the culture of peace and non-violence. Throughout this century, the world has constantly evolved, created, destroyed, reinvented itself and moved forward. Despite ideological conflicts and economic crises, political tensions and devastating wars, humanity has made its way inexorably towards one and the same history -- one and the same destiny.

New challenges are today confronting the international community in a context occasioned by the easing of ideological struggles, the end of the cold war and the creation of a unipolar world, with its inherent paradoxes for development.

One of these challenges is what is today called globalization: a global economy, a global political system, even global values and aspirations -- but also, global problems and dangers. In any case, implementation of globalization is encountering a variety of barriers and obstacles. On the economic side, unequal development between nations certainly does not facilitate the establishment of a universally accepted new world order. Worrying gaps are beginning to appear, especially in Africa: a chronic deterioration in the terms of trade; a crushing weight of debt; fratricidal conflicts; environmental degradation; increasing unemployment; persistent epidemics; falling numbers of children in school; declining official development assistance and meagre direct investment. Furthermore, two thirds of the least developed countries and three quarters of the low-income countries are in Africa. In addition, 50 per cent of the continent's population live in abject poverty.

The thirty-fifth Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit showed that Africans were ready to face up to this miserable situation by working for peace, stability and cooperation and by entrenching political and economic reform more firmly. But it also revealed how insubstantial North-South cooperation is, showing that it is often limited by policies based on vested interests or selective intervention.

The Summit also pointed out the difficulties inherent in the social, cultural and psychological structure of our countries, with many misunderstandings resulting from the mechanical application of criteria adopted in developed countries not only in the economic but also in the political and cultural areas.

The problems which have still to be solved are therefore numerous, and the international community sees them every day in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East. To these problems must be added the global controversy between the champions of an optimistic universality that easily tolerates the advent of and adjustment to a unipolar world, and those who retain a sense of their own identity and consider, rightly, that the interests of mankind lie in constructing a multipolar world.

These problems do not, however, mean that all hopes for harmonious globalization are purely utopian: they merely represent obstacles to an evolution which we know is unavoidable. What would be an illusion, however, would be globalization of the impossible, globalization that ignores the legitimate interests of humankind as a whole, because sooner or later that would be doomed to failure. The globalization of problems is a fact of life; that is why it is imperative for us to find global solutions.

It cannot be overemphasized how discouraging it is to see such a constantly widening gap between rich and poor and between rich countries and Third World countries that are stifled by debt. I certainly do not intend to complain to the Assembly about the many upheavals of a "Third Worldism" whose approach and methods are at least 20 years old and have become obsolete. The world is no longer as it was in the 1970s; it has changed radically. It seems to me, however, that this movement towards pluralism and the market economy should be continued and encouraged, and that it should be accompanied by a movement towards solidarity. In fact, I believe that the logic of power and confrontation that has marked the twentieth century should give way to a logic of solidarity that will make international relations more humane, based on fair exchange and shared prosperity.

The progress of nations would be incomplete if we restricted ourselves to seeking it solely through the market. We must also continue to seek it simply by promoting the most basic human rights. In sharing the idea of human rights, it must be made clear that the definition and observance of human rights must take into account the context of each of our States, with their differing traditions, social structures and priorities. For us, human rights are balanced by the duties of the citizen and governed by inescapable priorities. Apart from the struggle against poverty, disease and illiteracy -- ensuring that every human being has the right to a decent and dignified life -- is it not true that human rights also mean the protection of society from terrorism, drug traffickers and purveyors of death of every kind? In this respect, there are no discrepancies between our concerns and those of the developed world on the issue of democracy and human rights. Nevertheless, it remains true that these are issues of utmost importance and highest priority.

This is why we believe that the idea of the progress of the human race, and its emergence into the twenty-first century through the adoption of the laws of the free market, freedom of investment and other freedoms, cannot be separated from its progress through development aid and solidarity with Third World countries. In other words, our interest should be focused on the renewal of international action within the United Nations system so as to adapt it to the new world contexts, to help it respond to the legitimate expectations of the great majority of nations and to bring about renewed progress towards peace, stability, equity and shared prosperity.

I come from a continent where people need to have faith in justice, because they believe that the countries which exploited their resources to ensure their own development have a heavy debt to repay. They need to believe that, having given so much to building human civilization in the modern era, they have the right to demand that their dignity and their humanity should be fully respected. I seek also to remind this Assembly that, by letting poverty proliferate in a world which is becoming increasingly interdependent, the rich countries and the community of nations are paving the way for disruptions in national life and for international relations that will be increasingly susceptible to threats of violence, conflict and discord, which are harmful to democracy and to economic activity.

I also wish to recall that the failure of the Third World, and of Africa in particular, to make itself heard -- a failure reflected in the results of the Uruguay Round -- does not augur well for solutions to all the problems that I have mentioned. Does our degeneration mean that we are irrevocably doomed to decline, and that the poverty of the majority is irremediably bound to dominate the coming century? I prefer not to believe that that is the case; I prefer to believe rather that recovery is possible so long as concerted and sustained action is taken in parallel with action by the United Nations.

Such action must have two tiers. The first tier lies with the industrialized countries because the solution to the Third World's problems is in their hands, as the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund rightly stated over ten years ago: they have sufficient economic, financial and legislative leverage to initiate reform and to restore an environment conducive to growth for the developing countries.

The second tier lies with the developing countries themselves, which must take on the essential task of becoming self-reliant by organizing their entry into the world economy and by following through with economic and political reforms. Unfortunately, they have no other choice.

It is against this background that Africans met last July in Algiers, where the thirty-fifth Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit was held. During this meeting, which enjoyed a record number of participants, Africans took stock of their achievements since independence, weighed up current reforms in the light of external forces and internal realities and laid down the foundations of a new approach to and a new vision of the future of the continent. Priority was given to concord and peace in Africa. Africa is determined to speed up the settlement of the conflicts between Eritrea and Ethiopia and in the Great Lakes region, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone. Activities within OAU and the subregional organizations have been intensified towards restoring peace and putting an end to the suffering of the refugees.

Similarly, Africa has unequivocally stated that it supports international legality, democracy and respect for law, and accordingly it has set out the guidelines for the OAU position on the situations in Angola and in Western Sahara. It fully supports the United Nations initiatives there, as it does the OAU good offices in the Comoros, where it hopes that the Comoran people will proceed with democratic elections for their institutions so as to preserve the country's unity and territorial integrity.

A concern for peace and concord also underlies Africa's assessment of the Middle East peace process, which it hopes will come to a comprehensive, fair and lasting solution based on withdrawal by Israel from the territories unjustly occupied by it and on its recognition of the Palestinian people's legitimate and inalienable rights.

OAU is similarly concerned about peace and security in the Gulf, where economic sanctions that are disastrous for the affected populations should be lifted, as should those unjustly imposed against Libya and Sudan even though their Governments have fully cooperated with the relevant investigations.

The human race must enter the new millennium free of the disputes born of the historical vicissitudes of the tormented and tragic century now drawing to its close. In this context, hotbeds of tension and crises must be eliminated. The suffering of peoples who are still unable to exercise their right to self-determination and independence must end. The embargo imposed on the Iraqi people must be resolved in a less harmful way, as our Secretary-General of OAU would say, in keeping with United Nations resolutions. Terrorism, organized crime, drug and arms trafficking -- which undermine relations between States and weaken peaceful and fruitful international cooperation -- must be a top priority. New, ethical international relations should also be prioritized in order to usher in a new era of peace and common prosperity.

The Algiers Summit, however, did not restrict itself to expressing, clearly, Africa's desire to bring to an end the tragic phase of conflicts which are tearing it apart, and to go along, step by step, with the efforts of the international community to institute a just and long-lasting peace everywhere in the world. The Summit also studied economic and development issues within the framework of the Abuja Treaty, consolidating macroeconomic reforms through the revival of sustained growth and through regional integration within the framework of African unity, the principle of which has just been enshrined by the Sirte special Summit.

The Sirte Summit reaffirmed OAU solidarity with and support for fraternal Libya concerning the need for a final lifting of the unfair embargo imposed upon it. It decided also to establish new rules and norms to facilitate the development of operational structures and modalities for OAU with a view to achieving effective union between the countries of Africa. Such a union will guarantee Africa's security and strengthen cooperation between its peoples, which will gain Africa the respect and status it deserves in the light of the heavy cost it has paid throughout history in sacrifice, slavery, exploitation and despoliation during the colonial era. Such a union will also promote Africa's material and human potential and all that makes it so different from the rest of the world. In short, the Sirte Summit has reaffirmed in full the right of Africa to be an active part of the globalization process. As a result, justice will be equal for all, and the new concepts introduced by globalization will be immunized against any form of injustice, abuse or exclusion.

The Summit also affirmed the necessity of advancing new reforms in the context of cooperation and partnership between the United Nations and OAU in all fields. Lastly, the Summit proposed a new ethics for international relations, where the requirements of production and competition should obscure neither the higher interest of humanity -- whose very existence is under threat from all kinds of environmental degradation and other scourges affecting the natural world, humankind and human values and institutions -- nor the rights of nation States to their integrity and sovereignty.

We do not deny the right of northern-hemisphere public opinion to denounce the breaches of human rights where they exist. Nor do we deny that the United Nations has the right and the duty to help suffering humanity. But we remain extremely sensitive to any undermining of our sovereignty not only because sovereignty is our final defence against the rules of an unjust world, but because we have no active part in the decision-making process in the Security Council nor in monitoring the implementation of decisions.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the sovereign state remains beyond dispute a place of social contract and the context within which human rights should be organized -- political rights, as well as economic and social ones -- the international community should favour stability as well as concord and the culture of democracy for our developing countries. But all this will remain a dream so long as the real issues at stake, those of economic and social development, have not been clearly set out, because, for Africa as for other continents, these issues are the crux of the matter.

The debate on the concept of interference in internal affairs consequently seems far from over, as at least three questions require exact answers: first, where does aid stop and interference begin? Second, where are the lines to be drawn between the humanitarian, the political and the economic? Third, is interference valid only in weak or weakened States or for all States without distinction? In any event, we firmly believe that interference in internal affairs may take place only with the consent of the State in question. We firmly believe that the countries of the South are capable of overcoming their difficulties, so long as solidarity, loyal assistance and the concern of the developed countries and the international community do not fail them.

Algeria has paid a very heavy price for democracy, and like other African countries must shoulder the high social cost of the reforms which it is undertaking. It has embarked upon a vast project of national renewal. It is working hard to ensure civil concord, enhance democracy, establish the rule of law and renew and modernize its judicial system and administration. In short, we are working to create conditions for the best possible use of the country's economic potential and for individual and collective well-being in a society where peace has been restored and where free enterprise, justice and dignity are guaranteed for all.

This is an enormous undertaking, but a necessary one after a decade of ordeals in what was a war in everything but name -- a war that was inflicted on us, and which allowed terrorism and extremism to do violence against society, values, dignity and people's consciences. My country is re-emerging, slowly, from these tragic events, which were foreign to Islam. Many things have been said in various forums about this ordeal which engulfed my country -- most often, alas, by people who are hostile to or who have only a superficial knowledge of Algerian society and its problems. I will refrain here from condemning anyone's opinions, but I do believe that when a people has been exposed to a tragedy like the one in Algeria, for a whole decade, and has faced up to it with the courage and tenacity which the Algerian people have shown, then that people should at the least have the right to use its own Republic's institutions to defend itself.

Yes, my country has been wounded -- the very flesh of its children has been wounded. Tens of thousands of them are dead -- some victims of fanaticism, some victims of others' madness. In general terms, people have been victimized by the general confusion that nearly brought the Republic to its knees, hence Algeria's overwhelming desire to defend its existence.

In this context of passions unleashed, disorder, the instinct for murder, the marginalization of society, devastating nihilism and blood and tears, men, women and children have lived through untold suffering and the country's infrastructure has been flagrantly and blindly destroyed, with extremely negative effects on our economy.

Today the Algerian people are licking their wounds. The main thrust of our national recovery is civil concord; this shows the innate magnanimity of our people and our unshakeable commitment to the lofty values of tolerance which characterize true Islam. Today, the Algerian people are rejecting violence because it is not part of our tradition. They are committed to pivotal human rights, as they were during their struggle for independence and during the building of their country. They proved this in the referendum of 16 September by saying a resounding "yes" to the law on civil concord adopted by the Parliament in July. They proved this also by opening their hearts and extending the hand of generosity to those who had defied society and the laws of the Republic. They are proving it through their reliance on the law, itself increasingly inspired by the lofty ideals of the State of law and which, without being repressive, may not be broken by anyone, including the State. They have proved it because, true to their own selves, they know that peace and solidarity alone are the keys to economic and social progress.

The principles which we are recommending in international relations we are also resolutely endeavouring to implement at home, on a national level. With the restoration of peace, we shall consolidate all freedoms. We will irreversibly establish a culture of democracy and pluralism. We are currently committed to eliminating all bureaucratic obstacles to free economic activity throughout the country, endeavouring in this way to establish the rules of social liberalism and the market economy.

On a regional level, we are pursuing negotiations with the European Union on an association agreement and on the Barcelona process. We shall spare no effort in relaunching the project to construct an Arab Maghreb Union on the basis of renewed inspiration, rational action and realistic aims established in such a way as to ensure a viable, reliable and long-lasting institution. Like other countries, Algeria will pursue its negotiations to become a member of the World Trade Organization. On an African level, it will work unceasingly towards the advancement of the economic integration agreements reached within the framework of the Organization of African Unity; to settle the conflicts that are tearing the continent apart; and to promote long-lasting peace, which is favourable to sustained development.

In short, Algeria believes that in order to contribute in a useful manner to the future of the world, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, international stability, solidarity between nations and equity in international relations, Algeria must adapt to the economic and political realities of this world, modernize, reinforce and liberalize the general framework within which its economy operates, encourage private investment and ensure equal opportunity for all its citizens while ensuring their human development. This comprehensive and coherent action will be taken by my country in order to adapt to the way the world is now, so that it can succeed and so that it can gain its rightful place among the nations of the world, a place we first won thanks to our tradition of support for the ideals of this Organization.

Algeria is slowly but surely beginning to get back on its feet. It has entered a period of convalescence. It has done so thanks to its people's potential, vitality and energy and, thanks also to the solidarity shown by many sister nations and friends throughout the world. From this rostrum let me express the Algerian people's deep gratitude for and recognition of that solidarity.

We are at the end of one century and on the threshold of the next. We are at the end of one millennium and on the threshold of another. I share to some extent the belief that these milestones of our era do have an impact on the life and evolution of the human race.

The twentieth century has had its moments of glory, notably in bringing colonialism to an end, in combating racism and in eliminating apartheid. But it has also had its setbacks and failures, manifested in persistent underdevelopment, in the not always successful struggle to eliminate poverty and in the never-ending quest for better concord between peoples.

Will we draw enough inspiration from these milestones to turn around mindsets that still rigidly abide by outdated concepts of international life? Will we be able to hold out a fraternal hand to each other so that well-being can be better shared out in the world? Will we be capable of preparing a world for future generations that is better than the one in which we live? We can answer all these questions with a "yes", and it is with these optimistic words of hope that I conclude my statement.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria for the statement he has just made.

The President

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Republic of Namibia.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Namibia, His Excellency Mr. Sam Nujoma, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Nujoma (Namibia)

Mr. President, the United Nations is no foreign territory to you. For 14 difficult and challenging years, you valiantly waged a diplomatic struggle at the United Nations for the freedom of our people and the independence of our country. Your sterling personal efforts and unflinching commitment could not be better crowned. The people of the Republic of Namibia are very proud to see you preside over the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. On their behalf and indeed on my own, I express our deep gratitude to all United Nations Member States for electing you President at this session.

Mr. President, as you assume this very important office, you follow in the memorable footsteps of Mongi Slim of Tunisia, Alex Quaison-Sackey of Ghana, Angie E. Brooks of Liberia, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, Salim Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, Paul J. F. Lusaka of Zambia, Joseph N. Garba of Nigeria and Amara Essy of Côte d'Ivoire. These distinguished sons and daughters of Africa presided over the General Assembly between 1961 and 1994. They did Africa proud and they served the international community well. You should heed the views of all United Nations Member States, large and small, rich and poor. In that way, you will have maintained and advanced even further the integrity and importance of this most representative organ of the United Nations, the General Assembly. I assure you, Mr. President, that you can always count on the loyal and unqualified support of the Namibian delegation.

During your term of office, you will be flanked by another illustrious and committed son of Africa, Mr. Kofi Annan, one who hails from Ghana, a country which lit the torch of Africa's decolonization. To you, Mr. Secretary-General of the United Nations, I express my Government's fullest support. The Government and the people of Namibia particularly commend you for your determined efforts aimed at promoting the peaceful settlement of conflicts and bringing relief to the needy in Africa and elsewhere in the world.

I wish to add my voice to that of the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), my brother and colleague, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. He placed the demands and expectations of the African people before this body, as well as their resolve to face up to the challenges which confront Africa. Guided by the spirit of the recent OAU summit held in Algiers, President Bouteflika talked about a continent which is confronted by development constraints, but whose people have not lost hope: a people who are industrious, but whose efforts to make Africa achieve its potential are being impeded by social and economic problems. It is some of these challenges that I wish to address.

Today, economic disparity, debt burden, social injustice, unemployment, refugee problems and environmental degradation have become unacceptable hardships in various regions of the world. One may ask whether these burdens of deprivation have become a status quo for the majority of people in the developing countries? Have we concluded that there are not enough resources to educate every woman, man and child in this world and to keep them healthy and productive? Can all the technological achievements that are now at our disposal not be put at the service of all humanity? Words of reason have been spoken, saying that those who are affluent today owe their tomorrow to those who live in deprivation.

It has been argued that the solution to underdevelopment is globalization and liberalization of the world economy. This forces all of us to be equal, while, in fact, we are not. I believe that for globalization to work it must be transformed from a mere concept into reality. It must be a collective undertaking for the benefit of all. It is only logical and, indeed, morally right that no man, woman or child should go hungry while others are basking in prosperity. Globalization should not amount to protected and selective prosperity. If so, international peace and stability will be jeopardized. As long as over a billion people live in abject poverty, lack access to clean drinking water and do not know how to read and write at all, the benefit of globalization will not be universal. And the reality of inequality of States must be at the centre of any discussions of the world economy. The United Nations can and should help developing countries to maximize the benefits from a globalized economy.

The biggest menace of the twentieth century has been the unacceptably high and ever-increasing poverty that denudes humanity of its dignity. I wish to recall that among the commitments made during the World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen in 1995, was the commitment to halve poverty levels by 2015. Sub-Saharan Africa requires a growth rate of 7 per cent annually if we are to achieve those levels. The future looks bleak, but the determination is strong to overcome all odds and succeed.

Africa carries 10 per cent of the world's population, but produces only 1 per cent of the world's gross domestic product. Foreign direct investment in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at a meagre 3 per cent of all total foreign direct investment. With most of the least developed countries being in Africa, this vast, rich but underdeveloped continent continues to challenge our Organization. Poverty and disease have all become much talked about to depict the situation in many parts of Africa. Armed conflicts in various parts of Africa continue to strip our continent of its human and natural resources. This overshadows the overall achievements that Africa continues to make. Africa today is democratizing and undertaking economic reform to maximize social and economic prosperity for its people. And, indeed, some significant economic growth has been recorded in a large number of countries.

However, political and economic reforms in themselves will not deliver sustained economic growth. Increased foreign direct investment is very important to complement these reforms and to sustain the current growth rate. Only then can the lives of the African people improve. Let me emphasize that foreign direct investment should not replace official development aid. In the short term, foreign aid will be a necessary complement to Africa's own efforts for recovery and development of its people.

In 1990 I attended the World Summit for Children, here at the United Nations, as the newly elected President of the Republic of Namibia. I feel proud to say that we were among the first countries in Africa to complete our national programme of action for the implementation of the Summit's outcome. Our Parliament ratified -- and, in fact, most of Africa has ratified -- the Convention on the Rights of the Child, whose tenth anniversary we are about to commemorate. This embodies the legal standard with which we should comply in ensuring that children reach their fullest potential. Yet, to our dismay, too many children are being denied their childhood.

When a child is subjected to armed conflict, with each and every right being taken away, then that child is placed on an equal footing with adults. And when that course takes effect, then, regrettably, society has stooped to its lowest and the rest of humanity cannot and should not stand idly by. We can and must prevent conflicts from occurring, so as to create an environment in which all children can live, play and grow up under safe conditions. Only through a culture of peace can we combat all forms of child exploitation and, in particular, put an end to the phenomenon of child soldiers.

I would therefore like to stress that if every square metre of land that is inaccessible because of landmines could once again become productive, many children, especially in Africa, would be spared from hunger. And if every child soldier in Africa carrying a gun can be turned into a student, Africa's future will have been secured.

On the eve of the new millennium, we can all look back with pride on the fact that humankind has made major strides towards the betterment of the living conditions of millions across the world. The information superhighway has changed for ever the way we do business. Much of the world is now fully connected through the Internet.

Notwithstanding all this, much of Africa is still struggling to gain meaningful access to knowledge and information. In addition to our efforts to become more "wired", we are now faced with the enormous challenge of ensuring that our countries are all Y2K-compliant before 31 December 1999, in order to avert disaster. Namibia calls on all those countries which have the resources and the necessary know-how to assist developing countries in dealing with this problem. The international community needs to share knowledge because it is mutually beneficial. Developed countries have nothing to lose and everything to gain by sharing information technology with the developing countries.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic is eroding the socio-economic and developmental gains that many African countries have made. HIV/AIDS has been rated the number-one killer in many countries, including Namibia. My Government adopted a National Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS for the period 1999-2004. The aim of our national plan is to reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS significantly by strengthening efforts towards prevention and control. In addition to the existing Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional programmes, we have also undertaken other measures to ensure that there is no discrimination against all those living with HIV/AIDS. The international community should assist the efforts of the African Governments in the implementation of their national programmes to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Next June, we shall convene two special sessions of the General Assembly to review the progress made by Governments in the implementation of the commitments made at the Fourth World Conference on Women and the World Summit for Social Development, respectively. Let us use those opportunities to make equality among people a reality and social integration the norm, so that men and women can live together in equality and as partners.

In recent years, we have witnessed a number of positive developments in the field of disarmament. However, despite these developments, we remain concerned at the lack of tangible movement on the core issue of nuclear disarmament. The central problem is the determination by nuclear-weapon States, despite their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely. This is being done under the pretext that nuclear weapons are essential for national security. To make such a claim is a clear invitation to other States to acquire nuclear weapons under the same pretext, as by nature every State has its vital national security to protect. In practice, nuclear weapons have also become a means of exerting pressure on and blackmailing other countries. No State or group of States should have a monopoly on nuclear weapons. This is a new type of apartheid, which is unacceptable today.

In this century, international peace and security have been challenged by the barbaric conduct of a few individuals who have offended the very conscience of humankind by committing heinous crimes. Namibia wishes to record its firm stand against all acts, methods and practices of terrorism and reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of such acts. At the Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit in Algiers, the African leaders adopted the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism. Its elimination therefore requires the close cooperation of all United Nations Member States. However, international cooperation in combating terrorism, and the measures adopted to combat it, must be based on international law, the relevant international Conventions and, above all, conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The reform of the Security Council constitutes one of the important components in the efforts to strengthen, revitalize and democratize the United Nations. The composition of the Security Council does not reflect the substantial increase in the membership of the United Nations. Furthermore, it does not respect the principles of equitable geographical representation and the sovereign equality of States. In the existing Security Council, particularly in the permanent members' category, developing countries are grossly under-represented. To maintain such a situation is to erode the principle of democracy and fairness. Equally, a selective or partially reformed Council which overlooks the principles of equity and balance is against the spirit of the Charter.

My Government is therefore strongly in favour of the position that we must correct the existing imbalances in the composition of the Security Council. It must become a democratic and truly representative institution, unfettered by the unfair tendencies and practices of the past.

We support the expansion of the Security Council in both categories, permanent and non-permanent. Developing countries must adequately be represented in a reformed and democratized Security Council. Africa deserves at least two permanent seats and additional non-permanent seats in the expanded Council. Namibia, being a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, supports a reformed Council of no less than 26 members. We do not support those who advocate a lesser number on the ground of effectiveness.

Experience has shown that the ineffectiveness or inaction of the Security Council has been due to the threat of veto by those who possess it, and not to the Council's size. As a matter of policy, Namibia is opposed to the veto, because of its undemocratic nature. It cannot even be overridden by law or by procedures, as is the practice in democratic countries. The exercise of the veto perpetuates differences between members of the Council. In some instances, it has greatly contributed to division and inaction in the Security Council. In other instances, it has even prolonged conflicts and human suffering. If the veto cannot be abolished now, its application should be progressively curtailed until it is removed altogether.

The question of Palestine remains at the core of the problem of the Middle East. Only when the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are restored can there be lasting peace. We welcome the resumption of the peace negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders. I reaffirm my Government's unwavering political and diplomatic support for the Palestinian people under the leadership of President Yasser Arafat.

With the end of the cold war nearly 10 years ago, we all expected to share in the peace dividend. In this connection, it is regrettable that Cuba continues to be subjected to a cruel economic, financial and commercial embargo, which must be lifted forthwith. Namibia calls for the end of the embargo so that the people of Cuba can live in peace and prosperity with all their neighbours.

The people of East Timor have long yearned for their right to self-determination, freedom and independence. On 30 August 1999 their dream to determine their own future was overwhelmingly expressed in a referendum. The international community should assist the people of East Timor to complete the process towards statehood, peace, security and development. We welcome the decision of the Government of Indonesia to invite the international community, through the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force, to East Timor. We call on Indonesia to cooperate fully to ensure the success of that operation.

With regard to Western Sahara, my Government notes the progress made towards the holding of a free and fair referendum. We call on the parties, in particular the Kingdom of Morocco, to cooperate with the United Nations so as to enable the Sahraoui people to exercise their right to self-determination.

Despite the difficulties of the United Nations, my Government regards the Organization and its various agencies as the best possible instruments we have to promote world peace, international trade and increased cooperation. The admission of the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga has further strengthened our Organization. Namibia congratulates them and welcomes them into our fold.

In the current international climate, the United Nations is the only voice which can bring peace to strife-torn areas, bring development to those regions where is it needed most and settle disputes between States. However, to carry out its manifold tasks and duties effectively and efficiently, the United Nations needs money and resources from all Member States, without exception. In short, the United Nations must embody the hopes and aspirations of humankind and still reflect the realities of our times.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of Namibia for the statement he has just made.

The President

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of Georgia.

The President

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of Georgia, His Excellency Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze, and to invite him to address the Assembly.

President Shevardnadze (Georgia)

I have stood upon this platform on many occasions, and I well remember every speech I have given here since 1985. This is perhaps because, first, I cannot conceive of any loftier rostrum in the world and, secondly, because my personal political fate has always brought me here at times of great change. My most recent appearance before the General Assembly was in 1992, when I was already Head of State of my country, Georgia. That, too, was a moment filled with drama -- one in which a new, independent State was going through a painful birth process.

Today, I am with the Assembly at the end of a stormy century, one which I would call the century of freedom. That is not because freedom has become a universal norm of life -- regrettably, that is not yet the case -- but, rather, because the concept of freedom has assumed pre-eminence on the scale of political values and also because it was, indeed, in our century that the worst enemies of freedom and democracy were defeated. Perhaps the most unanticipated and important of these events was the demise of the Soviet empire, which brought about the end of the cold war, the bipolar world and the post-war world order.

The collapse of empires follows a more or less similar pattern. Initially, centrifugal forces triumph, but later phantom pains for the lost territories begin to be felt in the metropolis and attempts are made to recentralize the former imperial space.

Yet historical experience demonstrates that designs to restore an empire inevitably remain the unfulfilled dream of imperial reactionaries. History cannot be turned back. However, in the arsenal of today's reactionaries there remains still one chance to partially, if not completely, return to past ways -- by maintaining spheres of influence over the territories of the former empire. Here I do not mean spheres of interest, including strategic interests. Harmonizing interests in a civilized way is a normal international practice. The concept of spheres of influence, however, particularly within the context of globalization, represents an anachronism.

But let me return to the demise of the cold war and the bipolar world. As someone who happened to participate in this process, I think an explanation is in order since debate on how and why it all happened continues to this day.

I do not deny that the reasons for the end of the cold war were many and complex. Yet I want to especially stress the role of the new thinking, which was conceived even before perestroika. I am certain that no drawn-out economic hardships, not even any "Star Wars project", would have compelled the socialist camp to democratize within, or to take radical steps in the international arena to overcome the confrontation, if instead of Mikhail Gorbachev and his team, leaders who possessed the old mentality had remained at the helm of the Soviet ship of state.

Since I have mentioned Mikhail Gorbachev, I must send to him, a man who is an outstanding figure of our time, condolences for the death of his spouse, Raisa Gorbachev.

The new thinking of that period contained many elements, but we can generally describe it as a concept designed to make all spheres of political and public life more human.

In international relations, this implied, first and foremost, replacing the class-based ideological approach with ethically motivated decisions, in line with universal values. Only due to this new approach were the countries of the Soviet space and Eastern Europe able to make their democratic choices with relatively little pain. Without the new thinking it would have been difficult to conceive of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan or that truly epochal event, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the subsequent reunification of Germany and the liberation of Eastern Europe.

The old found it difficult to come to terms with the new. The two could not exist harmoniously together. Moreover, not everyone accepted the idea of replacing the class-based approach with the primacy of universal values. I remember that when I first expressed this concept to the Soviet diplomatic corps, it spawned aggressive clashes of opinion and upheaval across the entire Soviet space.

But has not this always been the case? Historically, changes of this scale were always preceded by paradigm shifts in human thinking -- that is, new thinking had to occur first. This was the case in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when a new world based on scientific thinking was emerging, and also in the epoch of the Enlightenment, during which the ideas of equality and humanism gave birth to the theory and practice of a democratic state.

In the historical literature and memoirs dedicated to the end of the cold war, one often finds references to winners and losers. It is erroneous to frame this most complex event of global historical significance in such simplistic terms. For example, how can Russia be considered to have been "defeated" when it set forth the example to other peoples by creating its own independent State? One might ask the same about other States which belonged to the so-called socialist camp and today are independent democracies.

Credit for the victory over the cold war equally belongs to the representatives of the former opposing camps who had in common the new thinking and a commitment to the noble idea of saving mankind from a nuclear nightmare.

If we talk of any loser at all, it was the old, stagnant thinking which was defeated, and a new common sense prevailed. Shifts in thinking should occur at every stage of human development. The end of the cold war is a highly significant intellectual breakthrough of the twentieth century.

The process of renovation of ideas is perennial. Stagnation is tantamount to backward motion. At the threshold of the new millennium, it is necessary that we once again develop a new thinking -- new principles in the relationship between States and a new approach to common problems and threats.

Today, nearly a decade after the Iron Curtain was lifted and the cold war came to an end, one often hears scepticism expressed about this great liberal democratic revolution of the twentieth century. "What has changed, after all?" some ask. Indeed, it is high time that we thoroughly assessed what has happened and surveyed the myriad new opportunities that have presented themselves as a result of this tectonic shift, as well as the far-from-simple problems that up until now one would hardly ever think about.

My ancient country, Georgia, is one of those newly independent States which provide a good platform for observing both the virtues and shortcomings of the processes under way in this new, post-bipolar world.

Although the history of Georgian statehood stretches back more than three millennia, the vicissitudes of history caused us to have to begin building our nation State from scratch once again in the last decade of this century. The beginning proved especially difficult. The utter incompetence and inexperience of its first post-communist leadership threw Georgia into conflict and civil war. The result was complete economic collapse and the loss of even those token signs of statehood that we had inherited from the Soviet system. Georgia in fact found itself isolated from the rest of the world. All this was accompanied by an unprecedented criminal rampage the eradication of which took several years.

Georgia began to work its way out of this isolation in the spring of 1992 when it became a member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and began to actively forge diplomatic relations with its neighbours and more distant nations. In fact, it was during this difficult period that our country -- its people and leadership -- made its choice. Georgia would set forth on the way towards building a free and democratic society based on a socially oriented market economy. Despite the serious barriers that continued to emerge along the way, Georgia never once departed from the course it set for itself.

The principles and practice of the construction of our democratic country did not go unnoticed by the international community. Under new conditions, when the bipolar confrontation was no more, international organizations were given the opportunity for their actions to span the entire globe, to help those States in need and to assist in their development. The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Union and particularly the United States, Germany and Holland, as well as others, extended their help to us.

The year 1995 was indeed the turning point in Georgia's new era. With it came the adoption of a new democratic Constitution, as well as the holding of the first parliamentary and presidential elections. In the same year, we achieved financial stability and introduced a new national currency. At the end of that year, for the first time in Georgia's democratic development, growth in gross domestic product was recorded. Very importantly also, law and order prevailed in the country, and the rampage of crime was finally curbed.

It was in the same year, however, 1995, that the first blast thundered. It was a terrorist act targeting Georgia's head of State. This barbaric act signalled to the world that not everyone found Georgia's progress towards democracy to their liking, especially if Georgia were to succeed along the path of her choice.

Recent years have demonstrated that the positive trends in Georgia have become irreversible. From 1996 to 1997, the annual economic growth was around 11 per cent, the exchange rate was stable and inflation continued to decline.

No less significant was the progress made in building democratic institutions and putting in place and enforcing the legal framework for a civil society. In this respect, it is no exaggeration to say that Georgia has travelled in several short years a distance that often requires decades. I am happy to say that as Georgia continues to improve its democratic institutions and develop its economy we are becoming a partner to others rather than merely a recipient of international aid. This is largely made possible through the new function that my country has been establishing for itself over the past few years.

For many decades the fuel-rich countries of the Caspian region and Central Asia were cut off from the rest of the world by impermeable walls. Now they have begun to seek alternative routes to deliver their wealth to the world market. The south Caucasus, especially Georgia, with its outlets to the Black Sea, has a pivotal location on the route along which cargoes are already being shipped between east and west and between north and south. Since April this year, oil has been flowing westward across the territory of Georgia via the new Baku-Supsa pipeline. In ancient times, Georgia was part of the great Silk Road. This function is reviving along with that vast highway that in ancient times traversed the continents, bridging peoples and promoting the diffusion of cultures and the exchange of ideas. I am referring to the great Eurasian space and relevant transport routes.

International organizations and individual countries have shown great interest in the idea of a rebirth of the great Silk Road. The European Union initiated the TRACECA and INOGATE projects, under which the construction of the transport infrastructure is funded and multiple alternative networks of oil and gas pipelines are being elaborated. The United States Senate recently adopted the Silk Road strategy support bill, introduced by Senator Brownbeck, which envisages providing assistance to the south Caucasus and Central Asian States to strengthen independence and democratic development, as well as to build a transport infrastructure that will include multiple oil and gas pipelines. In addition, the Japanese Government has developed a strategy for the new Silk Road. China and other States are also participating in the realization of this project. The countries of south Caucasus -- Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia -- signed partnership and cooperation agreements with the European Union that entered into force in June of this year. As for Georgia's progress in building a democratic society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights, its accomplishments have been recognized by the Council of Europe, of which Georgia became a full-fledged member earlier this year.

As I said earlier, the modest successes we have enjoyed on the way towards independent development -- that is, our participation in projects of global significance and our aspiration to integrate with international, regional and Euro-Atlantic institutions -- have irritated and continue to irritate the reactionary forces that are scattered across the entire territory of the former Soviet Union, where they pose a serious threat to democratic regimes in the new States, including Russia.

The terrorist blast of 1995 was not an isolated incident. It was followed by other provocations and terrorist acts, which included another attempt on the President's life. Will these attempts to force Georgia's deviation from its chosen path continue? We cannot rule this out, since geopolitical shifts of this scale never proceed smoothly. The enemies of our country use the entire arsenal at their disposal, including buying politicians and even votes, in attempting to bring to power a regime that is more to their liking.

In the current conditions of globalization and increased interdependence, no country is immune to the contagion of economic crisis. Last year independent Georgia experienced first hand the repercussions of the negative global economic situation, especially when the financial crisis erupted in neighbouring Russia, which continues to play a major part in Georgia's foreign trade operations. Today we can claim with reasonable confidence that Georgia's young market economy and banking system passed this test worthily, and international organizations and friendly countries made major contributions to our ability to survive.

Unresolved conflicts and our violated territorial integrity remain Georgia's most painful problem -- in other words, the very problem which is among the series of new threats that the international community has shown itself unprepared to deal with. As a result of the campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing conducted by Abkhaz separatists, with external military support, many civilians of Georgian and other ethnic extractions have been killed, and nearly 300,000 people have been displaced. Despite the aid that our Government, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organizations provide, these innocent victims continue to live in conditions of extreme deprivation. These severely traumatized people, who have been subjected to inhuman brutalities, demand protection of their most inalienable right: the right to live in their own homes. It is unfortunate that, unlike the confrontation in the Balkans, the Abkhaz conflict has been given no exposure on world television screens, and therefore the international community has little awareness of it. Having seen with my own eyes the brutalities committed there, I have no doubt whatsoever that people infected by the germ of hatred lose their humanity and behave in the same barbaric manner, be it in Kosovo, Rwanda or Abkhazia.

It is difficult to believe what has happened. With the help of foreign regular army units and mercenaries, the Abkhaz, who originally constituted only 17 per cent of the population, expelled the majority just because they were not Abkhaz, but Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Russians, Greeks or other ethnicities. This was accomplished alongside ethnically motivated summary executions and mass killings.

The involvement of international entities -- the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Russian Federation and the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General -- has so far failed to produce tangible results. In my opinion, one of the reasons for the failure of all attempts to resolve this conflict is that what has really happened in Abkhazia has not yet been objectively assessed at the level of the highest international body -- the Security Council, which the Charter mandates to act as the guarantor of security in the world. Is it not all too obvious that it is impossible to fight evil if one does not call it by its proper name -- that is, if one does not assign an appropriate legal assessment to what has happened?

The 21 United Nations resolutions on the conflict in Abkhazia, Georgia, do not provide such an unequivocal assessment, despite the fact that the final documents of the OSCE's Budapest and Lisbon summits qualify the action of the leaders of the Abkhaz separatists as ethnic cleansing. Indeed, the sole objective of the separatist leadership, encouraged by reactionary external forces, was to change the demography of this autonomous republic. It is hard to imagine that a regime that has in fact attained its goal can be convinced through mere request and persuasion to allow the displaced to return.

I do not want to be misunderstood. We do not thirst for the blood of our Abkhaz brothers, nor do we seek vengeance. No, I am sure that in time Georgians and Abkhaz will dwell together in their historic homeland: Georgia. But in order to speed up the process of the Georgian-Abkhaz reconciliation, the tragedy must be given its fair legal assessment.

It is no surprise that in a century in which the concept of freedom has acquired such scope, human rights command special attention. Before Georgia was accepted into the Council of Europe, rapporteurs scrutinized our human rights profile, examining how free the media were, the conditions of prisoners -- including the worst offenders -- and many other aspects of human rights. We are grateful to the Council of Europe and other international bodies and non-governmental organizations for their undiminished attention to this critical aspect of life in our country, and for their unbiased assessments and recommendations.

Especially against the backdrop of such keen attention to matters of human rights, I find it hard to understand the indifference of the international community to the fate of the 300,000 people currently displaced from Abkhazia and to the flagrant violation of their basic right to live in their own homes. The matter is not whether or not help is being extended to these people. Of course, they would have been in far more difficult straits had the United Nations and individual countries not provided relief. But in terms of human rights the only response proportionate to their situation would be to assist them in restoring their inalienable rights -- that is, allowing them to return to their homes and holding those who have violated their rights responsible, if only by giving an appropriate assessment of the acts of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, little has been done to this end.

Although expressing personal feelings is perhaps not appropriate from this podium, I find it difficult to repress my emotions when talking of completely innocent people expelled from their homes by brutal force fuelled by simple hatred. My heart is heavy. I was involved in the complex processes that brought an end to the Cold War. I believed, as did my co-thinkers, that the future world order, liberated from the confrontations between camps, would not permit injustice; that under the new conditions, the United Nations and the Security Council, at the pinnacle of our world's hierarchy, would be able to prevent individual assaults against civilized norms of existence.

The Assembly can imagine how disillusioned I was when ethnic purging of the Georgian population occurred, and, by the way, remaining unpunished within my own country. I addressed the Security Council twice with a detailed account and explanation of what happened, but no substantial progress has yet been made, even in the formulation of its resolutions. Having experienced this disappointment, I believe it should have come as no surprise that I firmly supported the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operation in Kosovo, aimed at putting an end to ethnic cleansing, since I viewed that operation as the long-awaited manifestation of a firm stand against evil. At the same time, however, the action in Kosovo must not be interpreted by anyone as even indirect support of aggressive separatism. By no means. I have always believed that aggressive separatism and attempts to manipulate evolving democratic orders by use of force is one of the worst and most dangerous maladies of modern times.

Since the end of the cold war, during which the threat of nuclear war hung over our heads like the sword of Damocles, while local conflicts, despite their true causes, inevitably acquired an ideological tint, political analysts have made extensive efforts to determine the nature of the virus causing today's aggression and the causes of possible future clashes. The theories are extremely interesting, and the debates as to how well they correspond to reality will doubtless continue for years to come.

On the other hand, from even a brief glance at today's conflicts it is clear that virtually all of them are linked to an erroneous interpretation by ethnic minorities of the principle of self-determination, and to a likewise erroneous understanding by titular nations and their central authorities of minorities' rights with respect to that principle. In other words, either aggressive separatism or no less aggressive violation of the rights of ethnic minorities, and in some cases both, underlie these conflicts.

During such confrontations, a certain segment of the population becomes undesirable to a group of political adventurists. This "foreign body" is then removed through the policy of "ethnic cleansing" and genocide. Today there are hundreds of places in the world where some groups of individuals may come to entertain an ambition towards this manner of self- determination and apply the well tried -- and, regrettably, in many cases successful -- method, which I would call the method of demographic engineering. It is not difficult to foresee how chaotic our world can become and what torment millions of innocent people will suffer just because they are found to be ethnically inappropriate, so to speak.

Today, when the epoch of colonial empires has been relegated to the past, the issue of the integrity of the State and the self-determination of peoples demands new, clearer formulations to ensure that each side in a potential conflict fully realizes the limits of international legitimacy of its claims. In democratic States, with Governments equally representing the interests of all its citizens, self-determination must be regarded as the right to express oneself in a very broad sense, but only within the boundaries of a State which, on its part, respects these rights. There should be no talk of separation by the use of force and violation of territorial integrity.

Let me also add that the rationale provided by opposing sides to justify forcible redrawing of borders always centres around an alleged necessity to restore historical justice. History, which is hardly an exact science, is interpreted according to the respective interests of the sides involved. I believe that new thinking should have a say with regard to this matter as well. In international relations, perhaps, one must not overemphasize, or, to be more precise, blow out of proportion the role of historical precedence. That was precisely the intent of the Helsinki Accords, regarding norms for the inviolability of existing borders.

At the same time, there is nothing more fundamental to the formation of a national consciousness than the citizens' knowledge of their own history. And this acquires special significance in the present era of vigorous globalization. The efforts of individual peoples, particularly small ones, will not be enough to sustain world diversity.