General Assembly Session 55 meeting 10

The President

The Assembly will now begin the general debate. 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 9th plenary meeting on 11 September 2000, that congratulations should not be expressed inside the General Assembly Hall after the 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 9th plenary meeting, the list of speakers will be closed on Thursday, 14 September, 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 the normal speed so that interpretation may be provided properly.

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

Mr. Lampreia (Brazil)

Brazil applauds your election, Sir, to preside over the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Your personal political experience and Finland's historic contribution to the promotion of peace, human rights and social development are valuable credentials that you bring to the honoured task of chairing our work.

On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I pay tribute to your predecessor, Foreign Minister Theo-Ben Gurirab. His diplomatic skills and commitments to the highest ideals of the United Nations insured him a decisive role at the helm of the fifty-fourth session.

I wish to make a very special reference to our Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. His moral authority has served as a beacon as we strive to fulfil the principles and goals of the United Nations. His report, "We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century", is a contribution of fundamental importance to the cause of peace and justice, and to a stronger United Nations. It will serve as a permanent source of inspiration as we ponder the crucial decisions the Organization is called upon to make.

Brazil had the satisfaction to co-sponsor the resolution bringing Tuvalu into the United Nations family. We salute Tuvalu as our newest member.

For the sixth consecutive time it is my honour to take part in the opening of the general debate. On all previous occasions, I took stock both of the positive and negative aspects of the current state of world affairs, the facts that afford us satisfaction and those that are cause for frustration and even indignation. This is our daily challenge and the motivating force behind our work.

We meet here for the last time this century. We all know that the twentieth century has been marred by a fundamental contradiction. We have seen a growing abundance of intellectual and material resources that should have brought about a greater convergence of opportunities and expectations as well as of living standards throughout the world. Yet, what we also saw was a failure to harness the necessary political will to translate those extraordinary possibilities into a reality of progress shared by all. This applies not only to the international community as a whole but is equally valid for the great majority of nations represented here, among which is Brazil itself.

No doubt, we have much to gain in identifying those aspects of our relations with the international environment that are a hindrance to national development. Yet it is equally illuminating to seek within our own countries examples of success and failure that help explain the world we live in. Globalization is asymmetrical in part because it flows from national societies that are themselves socially unbalanced and seem to have lost some of their urge to bring about social justice.

Freedom -- the greatest of values -- continues to advance on all fronts and in all continents. That is a crucial development. There is cause for concern, however, that the core values of equality and fraternity are dangerously being put aside. It is imperative that these two other essential elements return to the top of our agenda. They must retake their rightful place at the centre of our policy decisions before it is too late -- before some are misled into believing that the inevitable price for preserving freedom is the perpetuation of the divide between the rich and the poor, between those who are included and those who suffer exclusion, between the "globalized" and those left behind.

If democracy and freedom are to put down firm roots within our countries, we must foster a genuine sense of solidarity that translates into effective action. Only thus will we build an international order that is conducive to the preservation of peace and can function as an engine of sustained growth. It is unacceptable that major global issues and campaigns for transnational solidarity be manipulated and exploited in order to disguise what amounts to the protection of narrow interests. Unfortunately, this is what is happening in the field of international trade.

First, the inconsistency between free trade rhetoric and the continued use of protectionist policies of various types by developed countries. As I stated at the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle, the name of this game is discrimination. And discrimination, especially when waged against the weakest, is the absolute negation of solidarity. We must reverse these grave distortions in international trade, and especially as concerns agricultural products.

It is inadmissible that the most prosperous nations, whose economies are strongly based in the manufacturing and service industries, should be legally entitled to restrict access to their markets for agricultural goods, while they call for the free flow of those goods in which they benefit from an enormous competitive advantage. It is even more intolerable that these countries be allowed, as is presently the case, to subsidize the production and export of agricultural commodities to the tune of dozens of billions of dollars. These policies cause enormous harm to exporting nations that are more efficient and competitive in this field, but lack the financial means to offer equally generous fiscal incentives to their farmers.

Secondly, not satisfied with the persistence of this highly discriminatory situation -- where what is said often deviates from what is done -- there are those in the developed countries who give voice to sectional interests and defend a new offensive against the exports of developing nations. This is what the new language of protectionism, camouflaged as humanitarian internationalism, would seem to suggest. It unfurls the seductive banner of labour and environmental standards, which, if adopted, would further restrict the access of products from developing countries to the markets of rich countries.

This rhetoric and its appeal to certain segments of public opinion might suggest that the exports of developing countries pose a threat to the economic well-being and the way of life of the more developed societies. We all know this is not true. After all, these exports represent less than a third of world trade and are made up mostly of raw materials.

The main objective of those who wish to introduce labour conditionalities into trade rules has little to do with improving the quality of life of workers in poor countries. Their fundamental aim is to protect backward sectors of their own economies that strictly speaking are no longer capable of competing effectively in a free trade environment.

Sanctions and commercial barriers are inadequate tools to enhance labour standards and to protect the environment in developing countries. Our countries and our own societies, more than any other, are interested in achieving those very same objectives, which is why we need more -- not less -- exports and economic growth.

This is a message that developing countries must make ring out in a clear and powerful voice. We must instil in developed societies an understanding that they are not alone in the world. Above all, they must not presume to unilaterally write the rules of international trade solely according to their interests and points of view, as if the other 5 billion human beings did not have equally legitimate aspirations to progress, justice and well-being.

Nations must come increasingly to comprehend and respect differing realities and objectives among themselves. At the same time, they must recognize their commonalties and affinities; explore and enlarge areas of convergence and opportunities for cooperation; and overcome suspicions, rivalries and disputes.

Nowadays it is above all through regional integration that this learning process takes place. For most countries, it opens the door to a more intensive and meaningful participation in global affairs.

In the Americas, and more specifically in Latin America, we have set ourselves firmly on this course. The countries of the region are increasingly integrated among themselves and into the world. These are the two inseparable faces of the same forward movement.

A few days ago in Brasilia, on the initiative of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a meeting of Presidents of South America took place for the first time in our history. This gathering sought to bring together the leaders of South America around the common challenges that grow out of our shared geography and physical proximity. It is only natural that this first meeting should have occurred in Brazil, which shares borders with nine of its 11 South American neighbours, and has lived in harmony with all for over a century in a spirit of peace, friendship and growing determination to move ahead on the road to full integration.

The Presidents took important and concrete steps in this direction that will bear lasting fruit. In the political realm, they agreed to underscore the commitment of the countries of South America to democracy and decided that participation in future South American gatherings would hinge on the preservation of the rule of law and full respect for democratic values and procedures. They also agreed to hold consultations among their Governments in the event of a threat to democracy in our region.

In trade matters, they resolved to begin negotiations on a free-trade zone between MERCOSUR and the Andean Community, to be established before January 2002 and to be expanded into an economic zone covering all of South America, including Chile, Guyana and Suriname. To this end the Presidents decided to coordinate the planning and funding of projects for integrating the region's infrastructure, in particular in the priority areas of energy, transport and telecommunications. By working together in this way we will more quickly set up the physical links that will enhance South American unity.

Drug trafficking and organized crime are issues that affect, in different forms, all regions of the world. The Presidents highlighted the role of the Organization of American States in the fight against drugs in the hemisphere and the setting up last year of the multilateral evaluation mechanism to assess the performance of our countries in this effort. They also decided to establish systematic consultations among national agencies and to set up a South American anti-laundering task force.

The meeting of Presidents of South America was an event unique in the almost two centuries of independent nationhood for most of the subcontinent. As well as having historic significance and long-term impact, this summit will also generate results in the immediate future.

None is more significant than the commitment to democratic values. President Fernando Henrique Cardoso was very much to the point when he said:

"the South America of today is synonymous with democracy ... In this dawning of democracy, we will not tolerate abuses. And we will increasingly demand the right not only to vote, but to defend freedom, access to information and the judicial guarantees that make elections an effective exercise in democracy".

The United Nations has seen important achievements over this last year. Let me recall a few. The goal of creating a more just, tolerant society was reaffirmed during the follow-up world conferences on women -- Beijing +5 -- and on social development -- Copenhagen +5. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, modest but nevertheless significant progress was made towards freeing the world from the scourge of nuclear arms. As one of the New Agenda countries, Brazil is proud of its contribution to the success of the conference, whose results will be a litmus test for future advances in the nuclear disarmament field.

Efforts to establish an International Criminal Court have moved ahead, and Brazil signed the Rome Statute. Those that commit crimes against humanity must not, under any circumstances, go unpunished.

In the Brahimi report (A/55/305), a valuable framework has been laid out on how to strengthen the work of United Nations peacekeeping operations and, as a result, on how to overcome recent failures. The courageous Rwanda and Srebrenica reports offer us a precise diagnosis of what needs to be done.

In Timor, under the leadership of a model international official, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a new State is taking form and coming to life. We express our strongest condemnation of the attack on innocent workers at the United Nations office in Atambua, West Timor, who were helping to achieve this very goal.

In contrast with these achievements, the frustrations are well known. Peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have still to show results; the conflict in Angola goes relentlessly on as a result of UNITA's inexcusable failure to comply with international directives and law; and there is growing awareness of the devastating dimensions of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and in the rest of the world.

Less than a week ago, in a historic meeting in this very Hall, world leaders took stock of the work and achievements of multilateralism. The outcome was a clearer reaffirmation of our determined and unequivocal commitment to reinvigorate the United Nations. We reinforced our convictions about the crucial role of this Organization in ensuring that justice is done and that international peace takes root.

Brazil has always been convinced of this.

In the absence of the United Nations, human rights would be more vulnerable; the distance between antagonists would be wider; the difficulties in eradicating poverty would be greater; the growth of tolerance would be slower and democratic practices would face even stronger opposition.

It may be that the Millennium Summit only gave expression to what we already knew. The historic legacy of this Summit should, then, be our renewed willingness to act.

We all know that it is by mobilizing political will that we can make a difference. The United Nations is the model political forum of the international community and its central goal is to provide the ways and means to bring to life our dearest ideals, values and aspirations.

In this hall there has often been a divorce between words and deeds, between objectives and the tools to achieve them, as if they hailed from different universes, distant and isolated from each other.

It is only through political dialogue, and consultation among States made possible by multilateralism that a degree of rationality and predictability can be brought to the workings of global forces.

To foster multilateralism is to strengthen the United Nations and the modern understanding of the individual as the central beneficiary of international action. Only thus can we look forward to progressive and just governance in this integrated world.

It is our obligation to fulfil our common commitments, so vigorously underscored during the Millennium Summit. We must do so with determination and a sense of urgency.

The President

I now call on Her Excellency Mrs. Madeleine Korbel Albright the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Mrs. Albright (United States)

I am honoured to address the Assembly on behalf of the United States and to reinforce the eloquent message President C1inton conveyed during last week's Millennium Summit. Because my father worked here when I was young, I have always considered myself a child of the United Nations. And because I had the privilege to serve here as America's Permanent Representative, I feel at home and so will speak plainly.

The members of this body reflect virtually every culture, ethnicity and geographical region. We are city and country, inland and island, tropical and temperate, developing and industrialized. We are as diverse as humanity.

And yet, in responding to the daunting demands of this new era, we are bound together by the interests we share and the ideals to which we aspire.

We all have a stake in building peace and relieving poverty, championing development and curbing disease. We all want to see the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction reduced, refugees cared for, children nourished, the environment protected, and the status of women advanced.

We all believe the benefits of globalization must be allocated more broadly within and among societies. Because if the new technologies are to ease the old problems, they must help the many who today lack access and skills, so that every village becomes a home to opportunity and every school a midwife to hope.

As the Millennium Summit reflected, we have no shortage of worthy goals. We are right to aim high and take on the mightiest tasks.

But as the Secretary-General has said, progress depends on working together. We need all hands on deck, pulling in the same direction. For each of us, that responsibility begins at home because the international community cannot help any nation that is not striving to help itself.

Each Government has an obligation to observe international norms on human rights, uphold the rule of law, fight corruption and raise awareness about HIV/AIDS. But in the twenty-first century, no nation can protect and serve its people simply by going it alone and that is why we all benefit from strengthening regional bodies such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Because of their unique expertise and regional legitimacy, they can be instruments for solving some of the hardest challenges we face. But they will succeed only if we raise our expectations of these organizations, call upon them to act boldly and back them when they do.

Regional bodies can contribute much to the purposes outlined in the Charter, and the goals established during the Millennium Summit. But here again, they cannot do it all.

The role of the United Nations is also vital, because no other institution combines a comprehensive mandate with near universal representation and global reach.

We all have an interest in the success of the United Nations. That is its greatest strength, and also its burden, because 189 nations have to work very hard if they are to agree.

I remember when I came to New York in 1993, I was told by cynics that the United Nations was too bureaucratic to change, and too big ever to achieve consensus on measures to improve its governance.

Those cynics were wrong. With support from many countries, we have made impressive progress.

Compared to seven years ago, the United Nations accomplishes more and wastes less. Accountability has increased and duplication diminished.

The Internal Oversight Office, which did not exist in 1993, has grown steadily more rigorous and is responsible for tens of millions of dollars of savings. A culture of transparency and results is slowly but surely taking hold. Moreover, both United Nations Headquarters and the entire United Nations system are better led than they have ever been.

United Nations leaders and Members can take pride in the gains made, but we all know there is much more work to be done.

That is why we must back the Secretary General's efforts to further improve United Nations management, recognizing that every dollar wasted is a dollar lost to the fight against poverty and to the achievement of other urgent goals.

We must also move ahead rapidly to strengthen peacekeeping, because it is the most visible and vital yardstick of United Nations success and, for people in strife-torn regions, often means the difference between a normal life and no life at all.

There is no magic formula for curing the ills that have plagued United Nations peace operations in the past. But the report, just prepared by Ambassador Brahimi's team, is a solid place to start.

As President Clinton said last week, we need to ensure that United Nations peacekeepers can be deployed with the right training and equipment and the right rules of engagement so they can achieve, not merely attempt, their missions.

This will require a larger peacekeeping staff, on permanent assignment, comprised of the best talent and experience we can find.

It will require military planners the world over to recognize that training for peace operations is a legitimate part of every nation's security strategy. It will require the ability to deploy rapidly not only United Nations military forces, but also civilian police and experts in law enforcement and judicial reform. It will demand improved coordination between military peacekeepers and civilian builders of peace, so that missions begun are completed and recovery bred by reconciliation can take hold.

And it will require additional resources from my Government and from each of yours. And by "additional", I mean resources that should not come at the expense of other core United Nations goals.

The United States will heed the Secretary-General's request that we work together to consider and implement the best recommendations of the Brahimi report.

Whether for peacekeeping or programmes, the United Nations also needs a sustainable and equitable system of financing. We do not have that today. Member States, including my own, must do a better job of making payments on time. But we must also look afresh at the method used to allocate responsibility for United Nations costs.

Last week, the Security Council called for adjustments in the scale of assessments. This plea has been echoed by dozens of other countries and should be acted upon by the General Assembly this fall.

A more equitable system should provide a much stronger foundation for United Nations programmes and missions. It should preserve the special responsibility for peacekeeping of the Security Council's permanent members. It should retain a heavily discounted rate for the poorest countries. And it should reduce the United Nations overall reliance on payments from the United States, while at the same time enabling my Government to write a check to the United Nations for nearly $600 million in prior obligations.

Clearly, adjustments are long overdue. The United Nations needs a firm and reliable financial base. In the weeks ahead, the United States will be pleased to work with members to accomplish this landmark goal.

Further improvements in management and peacekeeping and a sounder financial base are a vital step towards a stronger and more effective United Nations. But we must also stand up to the campaign launched by Baghdad against the United Nations authority and international law.

Security Council resolution 1284 (1999) provides an effective plan for protecting world security through resumed weapons inspections and monitoring inside Iraq. It has expanded the oil-for-food programme that has delivered $8 billion in humanitarian supplies to Iraqi civilians, with $6 billion more on the way. And it would enable Iraq, through compliance with the resolution's terms, to achieve an early suspension of sanctions. Thus far, Baghdad has flatly refused to accept the resolution. The regime's strategy is to ignore its United Nations Charter obligations and to seek to preserve at all costs its capacity to produce the deadliest weapons humanity has ever known.

We must continue to do all we can to ease the hardships faced by Iraq's people. But we must also defend the integrity of this institution, our security and international law.

The Millennium Summit illustrated the United Nations long-standing role as a forum for articulating consensus goals. But achieving these objectives will require action at all levels, from local to global. It will also require a willingness to move well beyond the limits and habits of the past.

Today, the United Nations is taking on a wide array of new issues, what I call "people issues", because they so directly affect the lives of our citizens. They include the challenge of protecting our planet by limiting greenhouse gas emissions; securing safe water supplies; halting desertification; and putting a stop to trafficking in human beings. They especially include the fight against HIV/AIDS, which was highlighted in a letter to the Secretary-General signed by the women Foreign Ministers last night. These and similar challenges are sure to be important components of twenty-first century diplomacy, and because they are global in scope, require a global response.

The United Nations is also playing an increased role in areas where cold war divisions once held it back. Over the past decade, United Nations entities have contributed much by prosecuting war criminals, promoting democracy, supporting human rights and aiding the fight against illegal drugs.

These issues require a willingness to take a stand, as the United Nations has done in holding accountable the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing in Rwanda and the Balkans; striving to end rebel outrages in Sierra Leone; and expressing opposition to the long-standing and ongoing violation of basic human rights in Burma.

Let me say this morning that when the Burmese Government tries to blame the victims for the crime, and say that Aung San Suu Kyi and her party are responsible for their own repression, I can only reply that much the same was once said about Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Václav Havel. The world is not fooled, and we must not be silent.

Some argue that speaking out in defence of human rights constitutes interference in internal affairs. I believe it helps to fulfil the purposes of the United Nations Charter, because when international norms are assaulted, the United Nations must do more than simply observe injustice, or report upon it, or sympathize with the victims. We must do all we can, where we can, to stop the perpetrators.

This requires the active backing and participation of United Nations Members, so that respect for international law becomes steadily more universal and the incentives for observing global standards progressively more clear.

The result, if we are united and determined enough, will be a world of greater security, justice and peace. Realistically, this is essential, if we are to achieve the ambitious social goals we have set.

But there is one other essential element as well, and that is democracy. This past summer in Poland, for the first time, more than 100 nations came together to reaffirm democratic principles and ensure that the democratic tide remains a rising one around the world.

We did this not because democracy always produces good Governments, for it does not. But we are convinced by the evidence of the old century that the hopes we share for the new will more readily be accomplished if people are able to live and work in freedom.

Democracy is the one road we can all walk down together and the best system yet devised for sowing and growing the seeds of economic opportunity.

In promoting democracy, we are not attempting to impose our values on anyone else. In fact, this is not possible, because democracy, by definition, enables citizens within a country to shape their own destinies in accordance with their own convictions and ideals.

Make no mistake. In any country, at any time, dictatorship is an imposition. Democracy is a choice.

As we have learned during the last 55 years, the United Nations provides no guarantees of global peace or prosperity. But it can play a vital role as catalyst and coordinator, and as a bridge connecting the contributions of one to another.

To those who would judge it harshly, I would respond not by pointing first to the deliberations of diplomats such as myself, in surroundings such as these. Instead, I would point to the day-to-day efforts of United Nations workers caring for refugees, feeding children, providing shelter and preventing disease.

I would point to the men and women on the front lines, from Port-au-Prince to Freetown, and from Kosovo to Kisangani, doing some of the world's hardest work, and, as we have been reminded by the recent slayings of employees of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in East Timor, also the most dangerous. It is their efforts and sacrifice, in partnership with so many indigenous and other non-governmental organizations, that truly remind us of the United Nations purpose and of our kinship with one another.

This is, I expect, my last official speech to a United Nations audience. As I stand before you, I am deeply conscious not only of our many accomplishments, but also of the tasks not yet completed.

I am grieved by the conflicts that still rage, and the basic rights and freedoms still denied. I am frustrated by the gaps that still exist between our ideals and actions, and alarmed by the deepening material divide that ultimately threatens every nation, rich and poor alike.

There are those who say it is naïve to think that the future can be made better than the past. I am reminded that this institution was founded by men and women who were as realistic as any human beings could be, for they were the survivors of the worst conflict our world has known and determined that succeeding generations should be saved from holocaust and war. They had faith. Surely we, as well, must have faith that by working together within and outside this Organization, we can move together, step by step towards the lofty goals we have set, and thereby bring about a world more peaceful, prosperous and free than it has ever been. Since 1993, it has been my privilege to work with so many of you, from every part of the globe, in support of the interests we have in common and the dreams our people share.

This morning, I want to thank you for your friendship; pledge my cooperation in the months immediately ahead; and ask respectfully, in turn, for yours. I promise, as well, to serve the cause of international progress and individual liberty not only for as long as I am in office, but for as long as I am alive.