General Assembly Session 55 meeting 37

The President

I should like to inform members that, in a letter dated 21 September 2000 addressed to the President of the General Assembly, the Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of the Group of Western European and Other States for the month of September, requests that the General Assembly hear in plenary meeting a statement by the observer of the Holy See in the debate on agenda item 31.

Taking into account the importance attached to the issue under discussion, it is proposed that the General Assembly should take a decision on that request.

May I take it that there is no objection to the proposal to hear the observer of the Holy See in the debate on agenda item 31?

Mr. Dorda (Libya)

The item before the Assembly, submitted by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, does not concern Libya alone, but the whole international community -- all the Member States in the United Nations. This item deals essentially with contraventions and radical violations of the norms of international law, the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: one State decides through its legislative authorities to enact a law and proceeds to impose the implementation of that law outside its territorial jurisdiction. It imposes on all States of the world a law that only serves its own private interests. This State has made itself a god instead of God in the heavens.

Instead of Allah, the only God who should be worshipped, it made itself a new god on this planet and wants to enslave everyone as if they were a herd of animals. No people other than this State have any will, rights or interests; everything belongs to this State. This is madness, nothing more.

Libya is not the only State concerned by the activities dealt with in the draft resolution before you. For the past 30 years, Libya has not cooperated with the United States, nor has the United States cooperated with Libya. We have survived nevertheless -- independent, free on our land, free to make our decisions and determine our positions. We do not accept directions from that country's leadership, ministers or its ambassadors. Thank God for that.

Libya lost half of its people, 750,000 individuals, as martyrs in order to achieve independence. We are not ready to give up the memory of these martyrs in order to praise America or any other power on earth. They punished us by attacking our airspace, our territorial waters and our cities, yet we were not subjugated. They have imposed a unilateral embargo against us, yet we have not been subjugated. They have imposed an international embargo on us through the United Nations, in the name of international legitimacy, for an accusation that has still not been proven. Even in the Scottish court, which is being held in the Netherlands, they have not provided one piece of evidence or proof against the two Libyan suspects. They will not be able to do that simply because neither Libya nor the two Libyan suspects had any involvement in that incident.

None of these acts succeeded in subjugating Libya. What did they do? They enacted laws, not to punish Libya only, but also to punish anybody who cooperates with free countries such as Libya, Korea, Iraq and Cuba -- those States that have not surrendered. This act is not in fact directed against Libya or the countries that I have mentioned or those that I have not mentioned; it is directed against any corporation or country that cooperates with these countries.

A week ago I was in Cuba. I visited a tourist city considered one of the four most important tourist places in the world. It was financed by a Spanish investor. This Spanish investor, who established the tourist city, was threatened and asked not to implement this important project. Of course, he did not give up. They told him then that his investments in Florida would be halted. He said that he would give up his investments in Florida. They sanctioned a businessman, an investor from Europe, because he tried to invest in Cuba.

The United States is against Cuba, but Spain is not against Cuba. This investor is not an adversary of Cuba. Cuba is still there after 40 years of American embargo. This neighbouring country is still there. It survives as a free State and will continue as such forever.

This is unjust. This is an aggression against all international norms and agreements. Because Libya is a free State, it stands before you and sponsors such a draft resolution. Libya is not subject to anybody but God. Whatever will be will be, we will not be subjugated.

We are not against them, they are against us. We have not hurt their interests, they are hurting ours. We have not aggressed against them, they have aggressed against us. We have not severed diplomatic relations, they have severed diplomatic relations. We have not issued a single resolution imposing economic sanctions against them, they have done that. We are still living, free masters on our own land.

These unilateral legal acts, which are meant to be implemented extraterritorially against the country in question, are directed against developed countries, against industrialized countries, essentially against the countries of the European Union and Japan, countries that have made great advances in development and technology and that have great corporations in all areas of economic activity.

Mr. Dorda (Libya)

Libya is sponsoring this draft resolution on behalf of the General Assembly, and calls upon the General Assembly to vote for it, even if its format does not please everyone. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is very practical, realistic and flexible. We are open to any amendments that may be suggested and are ready to accept any ideas or viewpoints as long as they do not nullify the purpose of the draft resolution. If it is thought that we are referring to a specific measure, we reply that we are referring only to the unilateral decisions that target extra-territorial jurisdiction over any State, a matter that could be reflected in the title of the draft resolution or in its substance. We are prepared to discuss that, because we want the draft resolution to be adopted unanimously, since it deals with, and touches, all of us. What I said about the Spanish investor emphatically concerns all investors, corporations and countries. Furthermore, we should not allow a precedent whereby one single State directs the entire Assembly and we all become subjugated to it.

As I stated last year, some simple-minded and good-hearted people believed when the international balance of power shifted -- and I do not mean the end of the cold war -- that the world would witness a phase of peace, stability, reconstruction and so on, but the last decade, even if it did not witness a cold war, witnessed many hot wars, disputes and conflicts, in which missiles were used because of an internal problem. Battleships, aircraft and many other weapons were used in some of those conflicts and new weapons were tried out. This is not new for Libya. In our case, the new weapon was an economic embargo that has resulted in millions of victims, more than the victims of previous wars.

If the Assembly agrees, I propose that we delay the vote until the beginning of next week. As I have said, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is quite ready to accept any amendments presented by any delegation as long as such amendments do not change the essence or purpose of the draft resolution.

We should agree, because this matter does not relate exclusively to Libya. Libya has survived a unilateral economic embargo, and continues to do so. All our assets in the United States, whether liquid or mobile, have been frozen. They include the headquarters of our mission on 48th Street, the Ambassador's house in New Jersey and even our liquid cash. The account of the Libyan Mission to the United Nations has not been opened as of now, yet we survive. We are not wrong. This embargo and the legislation and laws actually affect the Assembly, not Libya.

Libya has no ambition to find reconciliation with the United States and will not ask or beg for it. The Americans, both verbally and in written documents, asked us to preserve the United States interests in Libyan oil companies when they discovered that European oil companies were coming to Libya after the suspension of the embargo. That is what the Americans want for their oil companies and those companies that have interests in natural gas. Libya is flexible, realistic and practical, and it is not against or opposed to any State. We have not committed aggression against any State, but we will not beg.

I call upon the States that wish to comment to do so openly, and we will wholeheartedly discuss any amendments after receiving permission from representatives who voted with us in the last two years, namely, members of the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned Movement and many other organizations, as well as countries that do not belong to these groups, including members of the Group of 77. We ask them to agree to our flexible request so that the draft resolution can be adopted unanimously. This draft resolution expresses the views of the international community vis-à-vis a country that wants to impose its internal legislation on the whole world.

Mr. Ling (Belarus)

The Millennium Summit Declaration, the discussions held by heads of State and Government of Member States as part of the Summit, and the general political debates of this session give eloquent proof of the significance of the problem we are discussing.

As we move from one century and one millennium to the next we are reaching an understanding of how essential it is that we institute radical changes to the way in which we approach the application of coercive measures. The fairness of the wording of the Charter in this respect can, and must, be adapted to the realities of the world today. The past year can be seen as a milestone in the process of establishing the United Nations conceptual approach to the use of sanctions as a means for economic compulsion. We have seen wide-ranging discussion in the Security Council on this issue and the successful study of the "Sanctions Decade" that took place with the active participation of the Government of Canada.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus is pleased to note that the Security Council has been able to adopt for the first time in its history a resolution establishing a specific period for the application of sanctions, whose effects, both political and economic, should be very closely analysed and assessed. Belarus also welcomes the establishment, under the Security Council, of an informal working group on sanctions, and we hope that its work will be closely studied and applied in a mandatory way, not only by the members of the Security Council, but by the Organization as a whole.

It is no accident that the international community is focusing now on the problem of sanctions. After the end of the Second World War sanctions were a very powerful way of applying pressure on States, in order to procure their full compliance with their duties under the United Nations Charter.

However, experience has shown that the wholesale application of a formula established then for those times has not always been crowned with success. A very clear example of this is the lamentable humanitarian situation that has arisen because of harsh coercive measures applied against Iraq. This has been confirmed by research done by respected international organizations like the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization and others.

One of the priority tasks facing the international community is to stop the suffering of the Iraqi people and the only way to do that is by lifting the sanctions. One important aspect of this problem is research on the effects of coercive economic measures on third countries. For instance, work by economists of the Republic of Belarus has shown the losses experienced by our economy as a result of the trade relations we have had to forgo because of sanctions. We hope that close study of this problem at the United Nations will lead us to a solution that is acceptable to all Member States. In this respect, the initiative by the Czech Republic to set up a group to study the various aspects of the impact of sanctions could be an effective instrument for further action and proposals. Our experience in establishing a group to analyse United Nations peacekeeping operations suggests that we can hope for positive recommendations in this respect.

In conclusion I wish to note that the delegation of Belarus welcomes active consideration by the Security Council of the factors involved in lifting or interrupting the application of sanctions. We hope what has happened with regard to Libya and Sudan will be the subject of further discussions in the Council. A topic that is becoming increasingly urgent is the practical resolution of the issue of lifting sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For its part, Belarus is ready for productive work and cooperation on all aspects of this problem as a part of the shared aims and goals of the Members of the United Nations.

Mr. Dáusa Céspedes (Cuba)

Cuba's position on unilateral coercive measures directed against developing countries has been and is widely known. Consistent with that position, my delegation voted in favour of resolution 53/10, adopted by the General Assembly at its fifty-third session, and will vote in favour of the draft resolution before us today.

Also known is the growing rejection of such coercive measures by the majority of the international community, which had been expressed in many General Assembly resolutions. Nevertheless we still see an international order in which the main economic and political Power, exploiting its position of hegemony, continues to apply coercive economic measures against developing countries unilaterally with the plain intention of imposing on them specific foreign policy objectives of its own.

Once again, my Government vigorously condemns the application of coercive measures that also involve outright violation of international law and seriously violate principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States.

At the same time, the enactment of these measures reveals the genuine nature of the policies of those countries that profess to be the champions of free trade, but at the same time set up huge obstacles to free international trade, using it to try to unilaterally impose their national legislation on other countries, in blatant disrespect of the principles of the Charter and international law.

The application of coercive economic measures as an instrument of political and economic compulsion affects the enjoyment of human rights by the peoples subjected to these unilateral policies. The World Conference on Human Rights and the Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly called on States to refrain from taking unilateral measures contrary to international law and the Charter, measures which create obstacles to trade relations among States and block full enjoyment of the rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights instruments, in particular the right of every individual to a decent standard of living for health and well-being, including nutrition, health care, housing and the necessary social services. The Conference on Human Rights also stated that food should not be used as a means of political pressure.

The international community has consistently rejected the use of this policy and has ruled it to be a flagrant violation of the principles, objectives and norms that govern international trade. Laws and provisions, such as the Torricelli, Helms-Burton and D'Amato-Kennedy Acts, are incompatible with the agreements of the World Trade Organization and undermine efforts to maintain a multilateral trading system that is equitable, secure, non-discriminatory, transparent and predictable.

The D'Amato-Kennedy Act, also known as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposes sanctions on foreign investors in the oil sector of these two countries, regardless of the nationality of those investors or the jurisdictions of the companies under which they operate, is devoid of any moral and legal justification, in terms of its political motives and the means it uses to carry out the capricious will of the United States Congress.

The Government of the Republic of Cuba once again condemns all extraterritorial acts that violate the sovereignty of peoples and is confident in the role that the United Nations can play to ensure fulfilment of the will and the decisions of the international community.

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

The use or threat of use of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion is a flagrant violation of the principles embodied in the United Nations Charter and international law, particularly in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter stipulating that the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Such measures are likewise an outright violation of the principles established in a large number of relevant United Nations resolutions and international conventions. In particular, I would like to cite as an example the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted in 1974, which states that

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

As another example, I also wish to cite General Assembly resolutions 51/22, adopted on 27 November 1996, and 53/10, adopted on 26 October 1998. These two resolutions reaffirm the fact that every State has an inalienable right to economic and social development, as well as to the right to choose the economic, political and social system it deems best. Through these resolutions the Assembly expressed its concern over the grave consequences of coercive economic measures used unilaterally and called on all States to repeal such laws.

The use of coercive measures as a means of political and economic pressure, whether undertaken unilaterally or under the auspices of multilateral organizations, constitutes a genuine threat to international peace and security. It also deprives peoples of their fundamental rights. The hardships suffered by the Palestinian people after the embargo imposed on their towns and villages by the Zionist entity, the suffering of the Cuban people that has now gone on for over 40 years, the hardships suffered by the people of Yugoslavia, the suffering of the people of Libya in the last eight years and the suffering experienced by the Iraqi people for the last 10 years all illustrate clearly that such measures are a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights and the principles of international law and international humanitarian law.

The continuous embargo imposed on the Iraqi people by the United States in the name of the United Nations in order to force our country to change its policies and deprive it of its fundamental sovereign rights is a prime example of the use of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion. These sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi citizens, including 500,000 children. Every month 7,000 Iraqi children are killed by these sanctions, which also cause tremendous damage to the vital economic infrastructure of Iraq -- and that does not even take into account the harm done to third countries.

The embargo imposed on Iraq has all the characteristics of genocide and constitutes a crime against humanity. Its continuation will only bring greater instability to the region and to the world. This embargo brings shame upon the United Nations, whose mechanisms have been used to serve the hostile designs of American foreign policy.

In its foreign relations, the United States resorts to political and economic coercive measures more than any other country. Presently, the United States is imposing economic sanctions unilaterally or multilaterally against over 70 countries around the world. This is a breach of international law. Again, it is also the United States that unilaterally resorts to the use of brute force, thereby undermining the sovereignty and independence of other States. I am referring here to the daily acts of aggression that the United States has committed since 1991 against Iraq in the guise of what it chooses to call no-flight zones. The United Kingdom also takes part in those daily acts of aggression, along with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey, which provide bases for flights and logistical support for this aggression.

Allowing the policies of economic, political and military hegemony to continue will ultimately undermine the fundamental legal pillars upon which the international community rests today. I refer in particular to the Charter of the United Nations and the rules and principles relating to human rights. The international community and its bodies should take firm and effective measures to end the policy of force and stop the use of coercive economic and political measures. We therefore call urgently on all Member States to vote in favour of the draft resolution submitted under this agenda item, as it marks a step towards the restoration of the rule of law in international relations.

The Acting President

I call on the representative of South Africa, who will speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Mr. Kumalo (South Africa)

At the Twelfth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Durban, South Africa, the heads of State or Government declared,

"We must take up the challenge to fundamentally transform international relations, so as to eradicate aggression, racism, the use of force, unilateral coercive measures and unfair economic practices, foreign occupation and xenophobia in order to achieve a world of peace, justice and dignity for all." (A/53/667, annex I, Durban Declaration for the New Millennium)

At that summit, the heads of State or Government condemned the persistence by certain States in intensifying unilateral coercive measures and the exercise of domestic legislation with extraterritorial effects against developing countries. I am referring to actions that include blockades, embargoes and the freezing of assets with the purpose of preventing those countries from exercising the right to fully determine their political, economic and social systems and to freely expand their international trade. We are convinced of the need to contribute more effectively to increasing the role of developing countries in the international economic system. Furthermore, the need for equal and non-discriminatory rights for all countries to join the international trading system and the necessity to keep the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its membership procedure non-political and economic-oriented cannot be overemphasized.

The Non-Aligned Movement firmly believes that increased recourse by the major trading countries to actions such as extraterritorial measures are incompatible and in conflict with international rules and regulations agreed upon in the WTO. The unjustified and excessive use of anti-dumping measures to the detriment of the trade of developing countries is a matter of great concern.

The Non-Aligned Movement also condemns the trend geared towards strengthening coercive economic measures on developing countries. In this respect, we reaffirm that no State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State, including through the non-extension of most-favoured nation trading status. We also reject the expansion of such trends, and urge States applying unilateral coercive measures to put an immediate end to those measures.

The Non-Aligned Movement is concerned about the adverse effects of the use of coercive economic measures on the economies and development efforts of developing countries. We have no doubt that such measures have a broad negative impact on international economic cooperation and on worldwide efforts to move towards a non-discriminatory and open trading system.

Our aim is to create a rules-based system where small and big nations will be treated as equal sovereign States. We believe that such democratic reform is necessary for all international institutions, including the United Nations.

At the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, held at Cartagena in April this year, the ministers called on all States not to recognize unilateral extraterritorial laws enacted by certain countries which impose sanctions on companies and individuals belonging to other countries. They were of the view that such measures and legislation threaten the sovereignty of States and adversely affect their social and economic development. Furthermore, they marginalize developing countries from the process of globalization and are contrary to international law, the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States and agreed principles of the multilateral trading system.

Mr. Erwa (Sudan)

I wish at the outset to endorse the statement just made by the representative of South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on the item before us, "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion". Most of the measures we are discussing today are sanctions, so I shall begin by speaking of sanctions in general before turning to the inhumanity and illegality of measures of this kind.

Paragraphs 99 to 101 of this year's report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization (A/55/1) show that the international community disapproves of the negative impact of sanctions on civilian populations, and indicate that it is peoples rather than Governments that normally pay the price. That accords with something we should all recognize: we ought to review the sanctions that the Security Council imposes.

If that is true of sanctions imposed by the United Nations, how much more so must it be of coercive sanctions imposed by countries unilaterally and arbitrarily for political reasons. Coercive economic measures are nothing other than a weapon used to discourage developing States from exercising freedom of choice about how they wish to develop in consonance with their own cultural traditions. Such coercive economic measures undermine international free trade and technology transfers, which are the common heritage of mankind: inventions may be conceived in one country but are very often developed in another. Such measures harm, first and foremost, the peoples and the economies of developing countries.

The international community as a whole, as represented in the General Assembly, has repeatedly rejected any coercive laws with extraterritorial effects adopted by certain individual countries. Resolutions 47/19, 48/16, 49/9, 50/10 and 51/17 all agree that States should refrain from adopting or applying laws with extraterritorial effects. Sudan firmly condemns the adoption of any such legislation, because it undermines the noble principles of the United Nations Charter and of international law; these include non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, and the right of every State to choose its own path to development.

Sudan, itself a victim of such coercive measures, calls upon States that have imposed sanctions to lift them and to renounce their use as soon as possible, to show their respect for the Charter of the United Nations, for the right of States to sovereignty and for the basic norms governing international relations.

Another purpose of the item before us is to improve peace and prosperity for all peoples. My delegation emphasizes that economic sanctions should not be used to exert political pressure. We support draft resolution A/55/L.9 and will vote in its favour.

Mr. Nejad Hosseinian (Iran)

At the outset, let me thank the Secretary-General for his report on the agenda item entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion" (A/55/300 and Add.1 and 2). It is a brief report but a useful one.

We are living in an interdependent world. This has been true for quite some time, and it will continue to affect our lives. In fact, as we all have recognized, the process of globalization is actively expanding and deepening the mutual interdependence of societies, and is reshaping the key features of world markets in capital, goods, services, labour and technology. It has also created numerous opportunities for international interaction and cooperation. In such an environment, recourse to unilateral and extraterritorial economic coercive measures constitutes a major constraint on the expansion of international cooperation and undermines the basic principles and fundamentals of the international economic, trade and financial system.

The adoption of coercive economic measures falls within the mandate of the United Nations only in situations where there exists a serious threat to international peace and security. Unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions against other countries are inadmissible under international law. United Nations literature against unilateral actions and extraterritorial coercive measures is quite extensive.

In particular, the General Assembly on many occasions has expressed its disapproval of the unilateral and extraterritorial laws enacted by certain States. The Assembly has found such acts to be in violation of the principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of other States, as well as of the exercise of their sovereign rights. The resolution entitled "Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries", adopted at the forty-fourth, forty-sixth, forty-eighth, fiftieth and fifty-second sessions of the General Assembly, and the resolution entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic Compulsion", adopted at the fifty-first and fifty-third sessions of the General Assembly, are prominent examples of a series of United Nations reactions to such unlawful actions.

Several relevant principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations provide a solid basis for the Organization to address the question of the exercise of unilateral sanctions by individual States. In this regard, both the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, adopted on 21 December 1965, and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted on 12 December 1974, stipulate that

"No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind."

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

Various forms of economic coercive measures and actions have been imposed against 79 foreign countries, in particular developing countries, between 1979 and 1996. The nature of such illegal measures has changed with the passage of time, and the adoption of measures with extraterritorial implications against the trade and investment partners of targeted countries has followed that of unilateral measures. The response to these policies and measures has also intensified at the international level. An increasing number of voices from multilateral forums, regional bodies and the private sector have joined those of the Member States and called for the total elimination and lifting of unilateral extraterritorial and other forms of coercive economic measures.

The critical need for an equitable, rule-based, secure, non-discriminatory and predictable multilateral trading system has been invariably emphasized in almost all United Nations resolutions and decisions on financial and commercial issues and in related financial declarations and conclusions of high-level meetings in this system. The need for a favourable and conducive international economic and financial environment and a positive investment climate as a means to facilitate and promote the share of developing countries in international trade and finance has also been endorsed by Member States by consensus year after year.

These instruments have, inter alia, invariably called on all countries to abolish all measures which could impede free international trade and financial transactions. These coercive measures also adversely affect the enjoyment of human rights of those countries against which these measures are directed. As we all know, the Commission on Human Rights has also repeatedly reiterated that the application of unilateral coercive measures has a negative impact on social and human development in the targeted developing countries.

Based on these principles and commitments, the international community, inclusive of both developed and developing countries, has presented a vigorous reaction to these illegal measures and actions. Many developed countries have discussed these illegal instruments within their own coordination frameworks and rejected their enactment. Some of them have even used international and intergovernmental mechanisms to pre-empt recourse to such measures.

Collectively, developing countries have systematically rejected recourse to such measures, including at the meetings of the Group of 77 and China, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organization of African Unity. The final outcome of the recent South Summit in Havana adopted a very clear stand in this regard. Moreover, individually, developing countries have also promulgated legal acts aimed at countering the legal effects of such measures within their national territory.

Finally, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), as an obvious example of extraterritorial coercive economic measures, is against international law. It is an illegal instrument which has targeted the economic, commercial and financial relations of other countries with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This instrument is also against the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This blunt instrument prevents any improvement in the atmosphere and impedes attempts to remove misunderstanding and mistrust.

The General Assembly, in its resolution 53/10 of 26 October 1998, expressed grave concern over the negative impact of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures and called for their immediate repeal. It also called upon all States not to recognize these coercive measures, to refrain from recourse to such measures and to nullify them if they are in place. My delegation calls upon all Member States to unanimously adopt the draft resolution before us on the agenda item under consideration. The unanimous adoption of this draft resolution will represent the collective will and commitment of the entire intergovernmental body to the principles, goals and objectives enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and other related agreed international instruments.

Mr. Osio (Nigeria)

I should like first of all to convey to you, Sir, the warm greetings of my Ambassador, Chief Arthur Mbanefo, and his regret for his inability to be present here personally because of other, more pressing engagements. Accordingly, I am delivering this statement on his behalf.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of 77 and China in support of draft resolution A/55/L.9, entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion", which was introduced earlier by the Ambassador of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. In adding our support for the draft, I have the further honour of reiterating the position of the heads of State or Government of developing countries on this issue, as contained in their Declaration and Programme of Action arising from the Group of 77 South Summit held in April 2000 in Havana, Cuba. That Declaration and Programme of Action are contained in document A/55/74, dated 12 May 2000.

I should like to quote parts of that Declaration. Paragraph 4 of the Declaration states:

"We reaffirm that in our endeavours we are guided by all the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and by full respect for the principles of international law."

Paragraph 50 states:

"We express grave concern over the impact of economic sanctions on the development capacity in the targeted countries, in this context noting that Libya has now fulfilled all its obligations in terms of pertinent Security Council resolutions, and we urge the Security Council to adopt a resolution completely lifting the sanctions against Libya. We also call for the immediate lifting of all unilateral sanctions imposed against Libya outside of the United Nations system."

That declaration is very pertinent to the guidance of this Assembly.

The Acting President

In accordance with General Assembly resolution 49/2 of 19 October 1994, I now call on the Observer for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Mr. Gospodinov (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies)

The general object of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, defined in article 2 of its constitution, is to

"inspire, encourage, facilitate, and promote at all times all forms of humanitarian activities by the member Societies with a view to preventing and alleviating human suffering and thereby contributing to the maintenance and the promotion of peace in the world."

This is the starting point for the International Federation's contribution to this debate. Any imposition of sanctions exposes a potential tension between two purposes: affecting the policies and behaviour of a target Government and protecting the life, health and dignity of the people of that country. Sanctions are intended to deal with the former, but risk undermining the latter during the course of their implementation.

It is the view of the International Federation that sanctions regimes can, and frequently do, intensify human suffering. This suffering is especially acute in its impact on the most vulnerable groups in society, in particular, children, people at lower socio-economic levels, refugees and displaced persons.

The International Federation's views on the impact of sanctions is informed by the work done in affected countries by the national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, including the Societies in the affected countries, as well as the participating Red Cross Societies from other countries that have worked with them.

In 1997, the International Federation's General Assembly adopted decision 52 on action on behalf of national Societies working in countries in particularly difficult situations, such as embargoes. The resolution noted that sanctions often cause a deteriorating humanitarian situation, in particular shortage of food and medicines. The decision followed resolution 4, adopted by the twenty-sixth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995, which called on the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation and all national Societies to contribute to the reduction of the undesirable side-effects of sanctions.

The International Conference is composed of all 189 States parties to the Geneva Conventions and the 176 national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. It has remained seized of the issue, and incorporated reference to it in the Plan of Action for the years 2000-2003 adopted at its twenty-seventh International Conference. The Plan seeks, among other things, to ensure that provision for the rights and needs of the most vulnerable people is the first priority for humanitarian action. Paragraph 10 of Chapter 2 of the Plan states:

"States and the Movement encourage the United Nations Security Council, before applying economic sanctions, to take into account the needs of the civilian population and apply humanitarian exemptions, as appropriate."

The paragraph goes on to welcome the work then under way within the Security Council on the humanitarian impact of sanctions.

For us and, we believe, for many other humanitarian organizations, these are intensely practical issues related to our ability to support our member national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and, with them, to assist vulnerable people affected by sanctions. That is why it is necessary to pay careful attention to the details of the actual workings of each sanctions regime. It is, for example, now accepted that adequate procedures have to be in place to provide the appropriate humanitarian exemptions whenever sanctions are imposed.

The International Federation and its national Societies are also concerned that when sanctions regimes are implemented they can have a number of damaging consequences for the fabric of the target country. Some of these consequences are directly harmful to the most vulnerable people in the country, and they can remain so for years after the sanctions themselves have been lifted. These harmful effects include the dislocation of the economic and social structure of the country, leading to long-term unemployment, social disorder and enduring hardship for the most vulnerable.

Finally, we urge States to take into account, before designing and imposing sanctions, the likely impact on the civilian population both in the short and the long term; to monitor these consequences as the basis for modifications to the sanctions regime; and to support efforts to provide relief for the most vulnerable groups in the target country by making resources available, and by ensuring that the practicalities of exemptions for humanitarian purposes are designed to facilitate, not hinder, these efforts.

The Acting President

Again, in accordance with the decision taken earlier, I now call on the Observer of the Holy See.

Archbishop Martino (Holy See)

My delegation is pleased to take this opportunity to participate in the discussion of agenda item 31, the "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion".

The Holy See has always voiced its concern for cooperation and solidarity among peoples of all lands. In his great encyclical, Rerum Novarum, written in 1891, Pope Leo XIII spoke of the necessity of understanding the common needs and aspirations that guide economic growth and the elimination of poverty.

In celebration of the hundredth anniversary of that first social encyclical, Pope John Paul II wrote:

"The poor ask for the right to share in enjoying material goods and to make good use of their capacity for work, thus creating a world that is more just and prosperous for all."

Unfortunately, the "right to share in enjoying material goods" and the creation of "a world that is more just and prosperous" have been, and continue to be, challenged by the imposition of economic measures that are not only coercive, but which also tend to stifle the very spirit of cooperation leading towards sustainable economic and social development.

In his report, the Secretary-General provides the responses of the 13 Governments that replied to his request to contribute to the report. My delegation realizes that receiving only 13 responses might appear insignificant; however, upon reading each statement provided by these Governments, a truer picture emerges, and a number that might seem small speaks volumes.

The Holy See has always opposed the use of coercive economic measures, which are harmful to the social development of a nation and its people. On a number of occasions, especially in the recently concluded special sessions of the General Assembly, the Holy See has noted its concern with the effects of these measures, not only upon the nations on which they are imposed but also on those States that suffer the negative effects of trade barriers which are part of those measures.

In his address to the Jubilee of Workers, Pope John Paul II, reflecting on his understanding of the rewards that come from a recognition of the gift of human dignity, said,

"Therefore the Jubilee Year calls for a rediscovery of the meaning and value of work. It is also an invitation to address the economic and social imbalances in the world of work by re-establishing the right hierarchy of values, giving priority to the dignity of working men and women and to their freedom, responsibility and participation. It also spurs us to redress situations of injustice by safeguarding each people's culture and different models of development."

My delegation believes that those words and the sentiment they convey can easily be translated into our discussion today -- that is, addressing economic and social imbalances and redressing situations of injustice.

Upon reading the responses provided in the report of the Secretary-General, it is evident that opposition to the use of coercive measures is widespread. That same opposition can be seen in the following paragraphs from resolutions adopted at the fifty-first and fifty-third sessions, in which the General Assembly:

"Recalling its numerous resolutions in which it has called upon the international community to take urgent and effective steps to end coercive economic measures" (resolution 51/22)

and,

"Expresses its deep concern at the negative impact of unilaterally imposed extraterritorial coercive economic measures on trade and financial and economic cooperation, including at the regional level, as well as the serious obstacles posed to the freedom of trade and the free flow of capital at the regional and international levels" (resolution 53/10, para. 3).

My delegation adds its voice to those replies received by the Secretary-General and to the Assembly resolutions which call for an end to the use of any measures that are coercive and that are incompatible with international law and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The many heads of State and Government who gathered in this very Hall only a few weeks ago reaffirmed their commitment to that same Charter. My delegation hopes that the spirit of that Millennium Assembly will continue and help to bring an end to any measure that would hinder the social or economic development of any nation or its people.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. I should like to inform members that action on draft resolution A/55/L.9 will be taken at a later date.

One representative has requested to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Al-Awdi (Kuwait)

My delegation has listened to the statement by the representative of Iraq in which he dealt with my country, Kuwait, and my Government in an inappropriate manner and in the wrong place. Regrettably, the representative of Iraq has arrogantly and selfishly tried to confuse the issue of the unilateral measures that we are talking about with the legal sanctions imposed by the Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter.

The representative of Iraq always, and deliberately, evokes these issues and confuses them, believing that the people sitting in this Hall are ignorant and do not understand this issue. This is a mistake.

According to my understanding and my reading of the draft resolution before us, it talks about unilateral, extraterritorial economic measures, and therefore has nothing to do with the issue of sanctions in general, nor with sanctions imposed by the Security Council.

Sanctions have been imposed against Iraq because Iraq violated the Charter of the United Nations by occupying Kuwait. We in Kuwait call upon our brethren in Libya and Cuba to deny Iraq the opportunity to mix these two different issues and to exploit the issue of unilateral measures to justify Iraq's violation of Security Council resolutions, the principles of the Charter and of international law. We call upon these countries to explain to everyone else that what Libya and Cuba are facing is different from what Iraq said today about the sanctions imposed by the Security Council.

The representative of Iraq talked explicitly about international laws and the Charter. I would like to ask him, what name does he give to Iraq's actions in Kuwait? Did Iraq not occupy Kuwait? A major, strong country like Iraq occupied a small country like Kuwait. He referred more than once to international law. I would like to ask him, what name does he give to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait? He calls for the implementation of international law, but he has to respect it before he invokes it.

Iraq is using the same old arrogant method. We heard the statement by the Ambassador of Libya, for whom we have the greatest respect. However, I would like to know, is Iraq using a different method? Iraq is exhibiting the same flagrant arrogance as the major Powers. It is the same method. Iraq is using its might to advance its interests. When a small country like mine is involved, Iraq does not give a damn; it occupies it in violation of international law and conventions.

What Iraq did to my country -- such as aerial bombardment -- has nothing to do with the issue before us today. We completely reject the link he tried to make. We would like to emphasize that what the Iraqi Ambassador talked about today concerns unilateral sanctions. The issue before the Assembly is not legitimate sanctions imposed by the Security Council. The representative of the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies talked today about unilateral coercive measures and not legitimate sanctions. Legitimate sanctions, which are what the representative of Iraq has talked about, were implemented in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy.

We reiterate that we will not be silent about this. If Iraq raises this issue, we will reply. If the Iraqi Ambassador discusses Kuwait, I will respond. Iraq is trying to scare us, to intimidate us, but we are not afraid. Before Iraq talks about the United Nations Charter and international law, it should respect them. We call upon those in Cuba and Libya not to provide Iraq with a means to justify its acts.

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

I regret having to take the floor at this late hour, but I am obliged to respond to the representative of the Kuwaiti regime, a puppet of the United States and talking on its behalf. The representative of Kuwait wants to tell the General Assembly and the representatives of the States in attendance what they should talk about, how, and what issues they should or should not deal with.

This podium is a free one. Countries have the right to express their viewpoints freely. It is true that the United Nations Headquarters is in the United States of America, but, in accordance with the Headquarters Agreement, States have the right to exercise self-expression freely from this rostrum -- despite the fact that it is located in a State that exerts all forms of coercion against other peoples.

All the delegations here dealt with sanctions, be they unilateral or multilateral. It is difficult to talk about an item entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion" and ignore the multilateral coercive measures that are being imposed.

As I said in my statement, many of these multilateral measures are imposed coercively on international organizations because one hegemonist State wants this. In fact, they are unilateral coercive measures. The sanctions imposed against Iraq are an example of that. At the moment all countries of the world -- except the United States and its agent Kuwait -- are opposed to the sanctions imposed against Iraq.

On the other hand, I referred to Kuwait in one word in my statement. I said that Kuwait provides land bases and facilities for American aircraft to bomb Iraqi civilians daily. American aggression is in fact a unilateral use of force against Iraq, for which there is no legitimate excuse, legal basis or United Nations authorization. According to the Charter of the United Nations, this is then an act of aggression. Anyone who provides facilities for those who commit acts of aggression is actually an accomplice to such acts. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia provide facilities, land bases and financing. They finance this aggression against Iraq. This is a fact that the international community should be aware of. Those who call for respect for international legitimacy and resolutions should abide by them first.

This has been going on for 10 years now, and it continues. They attack us every day and deny us the right to protest their aggression. Kuwait is a small State neighbouring Iraq with a population of about 600,000 people.

Therefore I call on the representative of Kuwait to respect the rights of the representatives of other States to express their views freely in this Assembly.

The Acting President

May I remind delegations that, in their second intervention in right of reply, according to the rules of procedure, they are entitled to five minutes.

Mr. Al-Awdi (Kuwait)

I will not respond at length to the statement of the representative of the Iraqi regime. We have long been familiar with his accusations and lies, so I will not address them in my reply.

As to what he said about the question of aggression, we are a small State and do not undertake aggression against anyone, to which our history bears witness. It is his powerful country that behaves in that way. With respect to our relationship with the United States, we have no fear. It is a friendly country to which we are bound by agreements. We are unafraid in that regard.

Iraq is trying to divide the Arabs. We have promised to support Libya in its just cause so as to preserve Arab unity. The same is true of our Palestinian brothers. However, there are instructions being sent from Israel to Iraq not to raise questions that may sow discord.

It seems to me that there is some confusion here as to who adheres to the Charter and who does not. Which is the powerful and arrogant State and which is the small and weak one? Everything that Iraq has said is false. I am preventing no one from addressing any agenda item, but I reserve the right to express my opinion.

Mr. Hasan (Iraq)

I apologize for asking to speak yet again, but I will be very brief. I should like to respond to one particular point that has just been made.

Anyone who speaks in this Hall should respect other speakers' intelligence, as he should also respect facts and reality. When the representative of Kuwait states that his country is not an aggressor against any other State or entity, what should we say about the fact that American and British aircraft take off daily from Kuwaiti territory to bomb children in another State? Perhaps the representative of Kuwait feels that being allied with the United States allows him to tell lies and that the international community will believe him.

A second issue raised by the representative of Kuwait concerned the relationship between Israel and Iraq. He claimed that Iraq receives and carries out instructions from Israel. I leave it to the intelligence of members to assess this accusation. It is obviously absurd -- as absurd as the person who uttered it.