General Assembly Session 57 meeting 31

The Acting President

I give the floor to the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to introduce draft resolution A/57/L.4.

Mr. Dorda (Libya)

The draft resolution that we are submitting to

the Assembly today does not pertain to Libya specifically, but to the whole world. It is not directed at Libya specifically; indeed, it is directed at all other States, particularly the industrialized developed nations that are advanced technologically. Therefore, here we are not defending Libya alone; we are defending the entire international community, and the industrialized developed nations in particular.

We should by no means accept that a parliament of any State can legislate for all of us. When people elect their representatives to a parliament, they elect them so that they will represent them and legislate on their behalf.

Such legislation cannot and must not apply beyond the judicial authority of those countries. We are talking about the parliament of a country insisting that its legislation should apply to the entire world, even though the people who elected those representatives elected them to legislate for their country only. If we accept that practice, then we can only expect further legislation of the same kind. If we comply with such legislation, then we must expect that there will be further legislation with which we have to comply.

We are not against any one State; we are trying only to defend ourselves. Legislation of this nature not only contravenes the principles of international law and the Charter, but goes against all international human rights instruments. It also goes against sustainable development -- a subject on which the international community is holding conference after conference at the summit level. What right does a parliament in any particular country have to legislate to prohibit countries from cooperating among themselves? We do not subscribe to the theory of laissez-faire -- yet those countries that subscribe to it are the very ones who are not allowing us to develop. Those who preach international free trade are the very ones who have legislated to prohibit international trade, cooperation, progress and development.

My country accords priority to geographical factors. Europe is the prime target of the legislation, and my country wishes to emphasize that it is quite satisfied by the level of cooperation that we have with all European States in all fields, including energy, industry, agriculture, services, trade and commerce. We are trying to redouble our efforts to promote such cooperation with neighbouring States, as well.

We are essentially defending the countries -- Japan and the industrialized countries -- that would be deprived by this legislation of the revenue and income that they would daily make in the Libyan market. We are talking not about Libya alone, but about the international community, about values and ideals, about human rights and the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law.

I call on the Assembly to vote in favour of the draft resolution so that in future we can pre-empt all those who seek to undermine international cooperation or to impose their legislation on our peoples, parliaments and representatives.

I wish members every success and call on them to vote for their own interests first and foremost, as well as for the interests of humanity.

Mr. Vallenilla (Venezuela)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of 77 and China in support of draft resolution A/57/L.4, entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion", just introduced by the Ambassador of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

In adding our support for the draft resolution, I would like to reiterate the position of the ministers of the developing countries, expressed in the Declaration issued on the occasion of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77, held at New York on 19 September 2002. Paragraph 42 of that Declaration states:

"We firmly reject the imposition of laws and regulations with extraterritorial impact and all other forms of coercive economic measures, including unilateral sanctions against developing countries, and reiterate the urgent need to eliminate them immediately. We emphasize that such actions not only undermine the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and international law, but also severely threaten the freedom of trade and investment. We therefore call on the international community neither to recognize these measures nor apply them."

I would also like to recall paragraph 96 of the Plan of Implementation agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 4 September 2002, and endorsed by the heads of State or Government of the international community, in which States agreed to

"Take steps with a view to the avoidance of and refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries, in particular women and children, that hinders their well-being and that creates obstacles to the full enjoyment of their human rights, including the right of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being and their right to food, medical care and the necessary social services. Ensure that food and medicine are not used as tools for political pressure."

I believe that these paragraphs are very pertinent to the work of the Assembly.

Mr. Kazemi Kamyab (Iran)

It is indeed regrettable for all of us in the international community that we have to address an issue that is in itself undermining the very foundation of multilateralism, a principle that is the cornerstone of the functioning of the United Nations system.

The General Assembly adopted successively resolutions 51/22, 53/10 and 55/6, in which it expressed its deep concern at the negative impact of unilaterally imposed extraterritorial coercive economic measures on trade, financial and economic cooperation, including trade and cooperation at the regional level. Such measures simply defy common sense, as they hamper and adversely affect the free flow of trade and capital at the regional and international levels.

Member States, in adopting these resolutions, have categorically expressed their opposition to any use of extraterritorial coercive economic measures or legislative enactments unilaterally imposed by any State. They have also called for the repeal of unilateral extraterritorial laws and sanctions imposed on corporations and nationals of other States.

The promulgation and application of laws or regulations that have extraterritorial implications infringing the sovereignty of other States and the legitimate interests of the entities and persons under their jurisdiction is a clear violation of universally accepted rules and principles of international law and has been strongly rejected on various occasions by the overwhelming majority of States. Coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion, in particular through the enactment of extraterritorial legislation, not only contravene well-recognized provisions and principles of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations, but also threaten the basic fabric of international peace, security and stability, in clear violation of the sovereign rights of States. They also impede and constrain the settlement of disputes through the promotion of mutual dialogue, understanding and peaceful means.

In an era of rapid and unprecedented change, the world is more than ever in need of peace, security and stability, which must be strengthened in keeping with the collective responsibility of countries and also through, inter alia, respect for sovereignty, rejection of interference in the internal affairs of other States, refraining from compulsion and intimidation, as well as the creation of an enabling environment for replacing conflict and unequal relations with dialogue and negotiations.

These measures have a serious adverse impact on the overall economic, commercial, political, social and cultural life of the targeted countries, diminishing their capacities and exacerbating the challenges they face at this time of globalization and its concomitant traumatic transformations.

Moreover, they are proving to have adverse impacts on technology transfers and on investment risk assessment, thus worsening financial and monetary management, weakening industrial and agricultural infrastructures and undermining the commercial policies of the targeted countries. Such coercive measures strain the actual and potential capacities of targeted countries in the very important areas of health and education -- two basic elements of every social welfare programme. This in itself delays the development of their economic infrastructure and results in the further exacerbation of their regional, social and economic outlook.

The enforcement of unilateral coercive economic measures has inflicted grave and irreparable losses, including a heavy financial and human toll, on the targeted countries. To this effect, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as one of the countries affected, reserves the right to pursue its material and moral claims and to lodge complaints against Governments enacting those measures.

Along those same lines, the Islamic Republic of Iran requests the United Nations to call for the abrogation of those measures through the adoption of concrete actions. All countries should, in a spirit of multilateralism and of sincere observance of international laws and regulations, avoid resorting to and enacting such measures.

Finally, I should like to conclude by expressing my appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report under the agenda item entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion". However, we are of the view that his report should, in addition to presenting a compilation of the views of Member States on this issue, contain concrete proposals and recommendations as to how the United Nations system could cope with this fundamental threat to its very foundation.

Mr. Erwa (Sudan)

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Allow me at the outset to draw the attention of the Assembly to its resolution 55/6, adopted in this very Hall, which called on the international community to take urgent, effective and rapid measures to put an end to unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion.

As the Secretary-General has stated,

"When countries work together in multilateral institutions -- developing, respecting and when necessary enforcing international law -- they also develop mutual trust and more effective cooperation on other issues." (Press release SG/SM/8447)

In this respect, I should like to reaffirm the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those that call for the development of friendly relations among nations and the strengthening of cooperation in resolving economic and social problems.

In this connection, the Islamic Group would like to reiterate once again that all peoples have the right freely to determine the political orientation they deem appropriate and the ways and means they choose in order to achieve their economic growth and social development.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference would like to express its deep concern over the continued application of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion and their continual adverse effects on trade and on financial and economic cooperation. In this regard, we call upon all States not to recognize or apply unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures imposed by any State that are contrary to the recognized principles and provisions of international law.

The Islamic Group has repeatedly called on States that impose unilateral sanctions on the States members of the OIC to desist from such practices, since they contravene the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. It has expressed solidarity with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Islamic Republic of Iran, my own country, Sudan, and other States that suffer from unilateral economic sanctions.

In conclusion, I would like, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Islamic Group, to call once again for the repeal of coercive unilateral sanctions that are used for political and economic compulsion and that disregard the lofty and noble principles embodied in the United Nations Charter. The Group fully supports the draft resolution entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political economic compulsion", submitted by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and calls upon all States to support it and vote in its favour.

Mr. Rodríguez Parrilla (Cuba)

Cuba vigorously and unequivocally rejects any application of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion against developing countries. Cuba's response to the Secretary-General towards the preparation of his report is quite clear and precise; unfortunately, it was not included in the main report, although we submitted it one month ahead of the indicated deadline. The corresponding corrigendum has been published.

My country voted in favour of resolution 55/6, adopted at the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly, and it will again vote in favour today of the draft resolution that has been introduced.

The General Assembly, in many resolutions, has opposed the application of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a flagrant violation of the principles of international law, the United Nations Charter and the norms and principles governing international trade.

However, the United States Government has ignored the appeals of the international community and continues to apply unilateral coercive measures as instruments of its foreign policy and national security interests. No other country of the world has so openly and so harshly applied measures of this kind. Between 1997 and 2001, the United States Government passed 59 laws and executive orders authorizing unilateral economic sanctions. Thirty countries were affected by these new measures. Thus, the number of States targeted by the unilateral economic sanction regimes of that country now stands at 78, according to the "2002 New Sanctions Study" published by USA Engage.

The so-called Torricelli, Helms-Burton and D'Amato-Kennedy Acts violate the sovereignty of States by imposing sanctions on third countries. The extraterritoriality of these laws is incompatible with the agreements of the World Trade Organization and works against the efforts of the international community to achieve a just, equitable, non-discriminatory and transparent international trading system. The five-year extension of the D'Amato-Kennedy Act, imposing sanctions on foreign companies that invest in the oil sector in Iran and Libya, contravenes the most elementary principles of international law, as well as the freedoms of trade and investment.

The application of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion must cease.

Mr. Ng (Malaysia)

Malaysia associates itself with the views expressed by the representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference on this very important issue.

We also join other delegations in reiterating our grave concern over the application of extraterritorial coercive measures in inter-State relations. We are dismayed that, despite the recommendations adopted on this issue by the General Assembly and United Nations conferences, unilateral coercive measures continue to be promulgated and employed as State policies and practices, with all their negative effects on the socio-economic development of the affected countries. The imposition of such measures contravenes international law and is totally incompatible not only with international rules and regulations, but also with the principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States.

Malaysia rejects the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure or coercion against target countries for their negative and often debilitating effects on large sectors of the population, especially children, women, the elderly and the disabled.

From the statements made in this Assembly today and in the past, and the responses received by the Secretary-General pursuant to a previous resolution on this subject, it is clear that these measures are as universally unpopular as they are anachronistic. In the era of globalization and liberalization, such measures run counter to the spirit of partnership being fostered by all countries, living as we do in this global village. In the increasingly interdependent and interconnected world, where international trade and international cooperation, based on mutuality of interests and benefits, play a pivotal role in relations among States, there is really no place or justification for the continuation of such measures, which are a throwback to a bygone era.

From the development perspective, unilateral coercive measures are one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development. As recognized by the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on the Right to Development in its report, these measures run counter to the principles of a non-discriminatory and open multilateral trading system and hamper the development of all developing countries.

Malaysia fully subscribes to the longstanding and principled position of the Non-Aligned Movement that such measures create barriers to free or unfettered trade amongst States, and calls on all States to refrain from adopting extraterritorial or unilateral measures of coercion as a means of exerting pressure on non-aligned and other developing countries.

In expressing its strong support for the draft resolution sponsored by the delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia joins the call for the immediate repeal of such unilateral extraterritorial laws, in particular the D'Amato-Kennedy Act and the Helms-Burton Act, the main objective of which is, inter alia, to restrict the target country's access to markets, capital, technology and investment in order to maximize the intended negative impact of that policy on the country or countries concerned. These measures should be scrapped and replaced with measures that are fair and consistent with the corpus of international laws, principles and regulations, and with a policy of dialogue and engagement in keeping with the spirit of our time.

Mr. Atta (Egypt)

At the outset, I would like to thank the Secretary-General, on behalf of the African Group, which my country chairs this month, for his comprehensive report on item 31 of the agenda entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion".

Today, we live in a world that is interdependent and overlapping on the economic and political levels, one characterized by globalization and short distances that once divided peoples, as well as by interdependency between societies and dialogue among cultures and civilizations. It is a world characterized by transparency brought about by the scientific and technological advances that have allowed us to keep abreast of all the developments that occur on the planet, even in its remotest areas. In such a world, aspiring to cooperation and unity in order to bring about progress, unilateral extraterritorial coercive measures used as a means of political and economic compulsion contradict the spirit of the new age and the principles of equity and justice between peoples and countries.

In spite of the fact that the United Nations Charter allows the Organization to use economic coercive measures only in cases that represent a threat to international peace and security, the implementation of such means by some countries unilaterally is illegal, according to the provisions and norms of international law. The General Assembly has expressed its rejection of such measures on many occasions and has adopted a number of resolutions rejecting unilateral coercive economic measures. These resolutions emphasize the fact that States should refrain from using extraterritorial laws which constitute a clear threat to international cooperation and to the fundamental principles on which the international financial, trade and economic systems are based.

The African countries are fully aware of their responsibilities within a new international regime that imposes multilateralism, such as the World Trade Organization, and that assumes the presence of a non-discriminatory and equitable environment among States to enable developing countries to advance and increase their international economic and trade activities.

But we question how we can accomplish such objectives, including liberalization of international trade, in view of the contradictions arising from the continuation of coercive unilateral measures that target specific countries and prevent them from opening their markets to the rates of growth that they aim for.

As we are guided by the principles of the United Nations Charter, particularly those of developing friendly relations among States and strengthening relations between them, the countries of the African Group, through many forums and along with other groups such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, have rejected and condemned measures that defy the will of the international community. We should take action against discrimination, injustice, occupation, hatred and unilateral coercive measures; take them out of international relations in order to have a just and peaceful world.

In conclusion, the countries of the African Group are concerned about the continuation of the unilateral coercive measures that affect the sovereignty and national interests of countries and international trade at the regional and international levels. Such measures not only undermine the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in international law, but also seriously threaten the freedom of investments and trade, since every State has an inalienable right to economic, social and cultural development, and the right to choose freely the political, economic and social system that is appropriate for the prosperity of its people and in accordance with its national plans and policies.

The Acting President

I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Ms. Ndhlovu (South Africa)

At the Twelfth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in Durban, South Africa, the heads of State and Government stated, in the Durban Declaration for the New Millennium, that:

"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".

The Summit also condemned certain States that persist in intensifying unilateral coercive measures and in using domestic legislation with extraterritorial effects against developing countries. These refer to actions that include blockades, embargoes and the freezing of assets with the purpose of preventing developing countries from exercising their right to fully determine their political, economic and social systems while freely expanding their international trade.

The heads of State and Government also reaffirmed their commitment to strongly resist and to take a unified stand against economic coercion. The Non-Aligned Movement is convinced of the need to contribute more effectively to increasing the role of developing countries in the international economic system. This need was recognized by all countries at the United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey in March this year. Furthermore, equal and non-discriminatory rights of all countries to join the international trading system and the need to keep the World Trade Organization and its membership procedures non-political and economy-oriented cannot be overemphasized.

Our aim is to create a rules-based system in which small and large nations will be treated as equal sovereign States. We believe that such a democratic reform will benefit all.

The Non-Aligned Movement firmly believes that recourse by the major trading countries to actions such as extraterritorial measures are incompatible with international rules and with the principles of the World Trade Organization. The unjustified and excessive use of anti-dumping measures to the detriment of the trade of developing countries is also a matter of great concern.

The Non-Aligned Movement, in condemning the increased use of coercive economic measures on developing countries, clearly states that no State may use or encourage the use of political, economic or any other type of measures to coerce another State, including non-extension of most-favoured-nation status. We also reject the expansion of such trends and urge States applying unilateral coercive measures to put an immediate end to them.

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

At the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement in Durban in April this year, the Ministers again recognized the rights of all States to determine freely their own political, economic and social systems. They thus condemned the continued use by certain countries of extraterritorial measures and the imposition of unilateral coercive economic measures against certain developing countries.

The Ministers also repeated the Non-Aligned Movement's call on all States not to recognize unilateral, extraterritorial laws as enacted by certain countries. They were of the view that such measures threaten the sovereignty of States and adversely affect their social and economic development. Furthermore, they marginalize developing countries with regard to the process of globalization and are contrary to international law, to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, to the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States, and to agreed principles of the multilateral trading system.

The Acting President

I now give the floor to the representative of Kuwait.

Mr. Al-Awadi (Kuwait)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of Arab States, which my country is chairing for the month of October.

Over the past few years, the Arab Group has followed closely the discussions held in the General Assembly on the item before us today, entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion". Those discussions have led to the adoption of three Assembly resolutions expressing the concern of Member States at the negative impact of coercive measures that are imposed unilaterally and that transcend national and regional jurisdictions. The resolutions call for the elimination of national laws that contradict and contravene international law. More than once, the members of the Arab Group have expressed, through their membership in the Arab League or in other regional organizations -- particularly the Non-Aligned Movement -- their complete rejection of such coercive measures, which contradict the principle of the sovereignty of States and other international norms under which we all operate in organizing our international relations.

We in the Arab Group are fully convinced of the impact of unilateral coercive economic measures on the efforts of the United Nations to follow up on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration. The Secretary-General has pointed out that one of our primary objectives for the next century is to strengthen international law in all areas, particularly to respect the Charter principles of the equal sovereignty of States and of non-intervention in their internal affairs. The Assembly should continue to reject such measures, which attempt to marginalize international law and to put national laws above its principles and norms. Such objectives contradict those on which we agreed when we set out priorities for facing the challenges of the new century, which require that we strongly uphold the principles and purposes of the Charter and that we ensure compliance with resolutions of international legitimacy, particularly on the part of those that ignore such norms. We should like to recall that the issue of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures and the fact that they contravene international law are not new.

Here, I should like to point out the inadmissibility of intervention in the internal affairs of countries and the importance of protecting the sovereignty and equality of States, which the General Assembly affirmed in 1956, as well as the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted in 1974 by the General Assembly in resolution 3281 (XXIX), which states that no country 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. That is the essence of the three resolutions adopted by the General Assembly under this item and the objective of the draft resolution that we shall consider for adoption at the end of today's debate.

The extent to which such unilateral coercive measures contravene the principles of international law -- not to speak of the obvious negative economic and social effects of their implementation, which we have no time to consider at the moment because of our convention and because they are well known to everyone -- should be enough to convince the international community to continue to reject them. Therefore, the Arab Group calls upon all members to join us in supporting the draft resolution before us today for consideration, sponsored by the representative of Libya. That draft resolution is in conformity with the firm international position that rejects unilateral economic measures and supports States in rejecting such measures, which lack international legitimacy.

The Acting President

I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr. Wehbe (Syria)

Enhancing international cooperation to resolve problems of an economic and social nature constitutes one of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. For that reason, the international community must fully assume its responsibilities in dealing with unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures used as a means of political and economic compulsion.

Globalization means that we must face great challenges. In order to do that, we must work together to prevent the consolidation of the negative measures used by certain parties to impose economic and social conditions on other States -- particularly developing countries and all those maintaining economic relations with them -- in flagrant violation of the simplest rules of international law and of the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

All peoples have the right to self-determination. On the basis of that right, which is guaranteed by the Charter, peoples are free to determine their own political reality and to work for the development of their economic, social and cultural systems. The sovereign right of States has been confirmed, for example, in the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted in 1974 by the General Assembly in resolution 3281 (XXIX). Article 32 of that document states: "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". A nation's imposition of its national laws on the nationals or companies of third countries in such a way as to exceed its territorial limits is a further violation of the sovereign rights of States.

Unilateral, extraterritorial coercive economic measures are not just a violation of the principles of international law and the standards, goals and norms governing international trade and World Trade Organization agreements, they also have negative consequences on the social and human development of developing countries victimized by such measures. The Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly confirmed this fact. Likewise, at the XII Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, held at Durban, South Africa, heads of State and Government condemned the persistence of some States in intensifying such economic measures unilaterally and to adopt national legislation having extraterritorial effect in order to prevent developing countries from exercising their full right to determine their own political, economic and social systems and to freely expand their international trade. The Non-Aligned Movement reaffirmed that position once again at the ministerial meeting of its Coordinating Bureau held in Durban in 2002, at which time the Movement also reaffirmed its repudiation of national laws that exceed the territorial limits of States as contrary to the very nature of international relations and the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Similarly, at the South Summit, held in Havana, the heads of State and Government of the Group of 77 and China reaffirmed their categorical rejection of the imposition of laws and regulations with extraterritorial effect, as well as all forms of coercive economic measures. They also stressed that such measures not only run counter to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and in international law, but pose a serious threat to freedom of trade and investment. In that regard, they appealed to the international community not to recognize such measures or to apply them, as those measures were tantamount to defiance of investors, developing countries, countries of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, as well as being contrary to the principles of morality and law and representing utter defiance for the Charter.

The international community is increasingly aware of the dangers and negative effects posed by these unilateral economic measures as these measures have not been confined to target countries. Their consequences also affect every country and company that maintains relations with those States. We believe that the international community should take a clear and firm position in dealing with these measures. It should also take a bolder and more courageous stance to meet the challenge posed by coercive measures, as they represent a violation of the rules of international law and of the Charter of the United Nations.

The considerable increase in the number of countries voting in favour of the resolution on this subject at the fifty-fifth session is evidence of the international community's growing awareness of the need to confront this challenge to international law. We hope that this trend will continue as we adopt the draft resolution before the Assembly. We are convinced that all the statements made today on behalf of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab Group -- with which we associate ourselves -- should help foster the growing trend in opposition to the practice of adopting unilateral measures to impose sanctions on third countries, particularly on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Sudan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba and the other States throughout the world that have been targets of coercive measures.

Mr. Salman (Iraq)

At the outset, I have the pleasure to express my gratitude to the delegation of the brotherly Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its initiative to include this important item on the agenda of the General Assembly, given the increased tendency to resort to coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion, and the heightened tensions in international political and economic relations that are endangering international peace.

Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations stipulates that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The Charter has also entrusted the General Assembly with several major tasks, including developing international cooperation in the cultural, social, economic, educational and medical fields and promoting respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all peoples. It is on the basis of that responsibility that the General Assembly is called upon to consider any measures taken in contravention of those principles and to examine ways of responding to them.

Practical experience has demonstrated that coercive economic measures is a loathsome weapon that cannot deter peoples from attaining their inalienable right to chose their own political, economic and social systems. This weapon has shown its effectiveness in injuring innocent civilians, delaying development in targeted countries and their trading partners, sowing the seeds of economic and political instability throughout the world, and flouting the Charter, international humanitarian law, human rights, and the principles of the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States. It has also been effective in suppressing the right of peoples to choose their own political and economic regimes and their right to development and participation in international economic relations based on mutually beneficial common interests.

The imposition of coercive economic measures by individual countries through unilateral laws or through multilateral forums is a short-sighted policy that leads nowhere. We would like to draw attention to the fact that countries that resort to unilateral coercive economic measures as a means of economic and political compulsion always attempt to lend the appearance of legitimacy to those measures by transforming them into multilateral measures. That has occurred in the cases of Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Cuba and Iran with the imposition of multilateral sanctions regimes against those countries.

The world today is undergoing rapid changes through the efforts of the international community, as represented by the majority of Members of this international Organization, to establish the rule of law and to build a world of justice, prosperity and equal rights for all. On the other hand, there are the few who are motivated by the arrogance of force and dominion, who consider themselves above the law and who will use any means to serve their own interests. The majority must call on the few to warn them of the error of their ways. The draft resolution before the General Assembly today, introduced by fraternal Libya, is an attempt in that direction.

Coercive economic measures imposed against Iraq have led to the destruction of its economic infrastructure and to a humanitarian disaster in which more than 1,700,000 citizens have died. It is one of the worst disasters of modern history. That has been confirmed by reports of United Nations agencies and international humanitarian organizations. The unilateral coercive economic measures that the United States and the United Kingdom insist on imposing actually represent a political conflict with Iraq, not the implementation of United Nations resolutions.

In conclusion, we must point out that unilateral coercive measures have made it impossible for Iraq to pay its share to the international Organization and have caused it to lose its right to vote. If Iraq had the right to vote, it would vote in favour of the draft resolution entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion", contained in document A/57/L.4.

The Acting President

In accordance with the decision taken at the 27th plenary meeting, on 14 October 2002, I call on the Observer of the Holy See.

Archbishop Martino (Holy See)

The discussion on unilateral extraterritorial coercive measures has continued for too many years. The Assembly has before it the report of the Secretary-General (A/57/179 and Add.1 and Corr.1), which once again provides the responses of States concerning that important issue.

In 1997, in preparation for the report of the Secretary-General to the fifty-second session, the Holy See made its contribution, and my delegation believes that this is an appropriate opportunity to once again bring that response to the attention of the Assembly:

"The Holy See, because of its particular nature, does not have economic and trade relations with other States. However, by means of the articulation of its clear and principled stand on the question of the imposition of international economic sanctions and other means of political and economic coercion, especially by His Holiness Pope John Paul II, as well as through its diplomatic activity in this area, it has sought to alleviate the distress suffered by civilian populations that are either directly or indirectly affected by the imposition of such measures. The Holy See considers it to be legitimate for the international community to resort to economic sanctions when confronted with a specific Government that has acted in a manner that places world peace in danger. However, the Holy See holds that there are several conditions that must accompany the imposition of such sanctions, namely, sanctions may not be a means of warfare or punishment of a people; sanctions should be a temporary means of exerting pressure on Governments whose choices threaten international peace; sanctions must be proportionate to the goals they hope to achieve; and sanctions must always be accompanied by a dialogue between the parties involved.

"His Holiness Pope John Paul II has stated that the embargo, clearly defined by law, is an instrument that needs to be used with great discernment and it must be subjected to strict legal and ethical criteria. It is always imperative to foresee the humanitarian consequences of sanctions, without failing to respect the just proportion that such measures should have in relation to the very evil that they are meant to remedy. ... A mechanism should be introduced that would allow for independent and effective control of the humanitarian consequences of sanctions and subsequently establish ways to correct those effects. The legitimate decision by the international community never dispenses with the due attention that must be paid to the concrete fate of the civilian population." (A/52/459, paras. 29 and 30)

The position of the Holy See has not changed, and it aligns itself with those other States that continue to call for the end of unjust and harmful measures directed at States, not only on the basis of national sovereignty, relations to trade or economic matters, but most especially on the basis of the recognition of human dignity and the right to life, liberty and security.

Even as the discussion continues, the Holy See will renew its commitment, and it joins with other Governments, in pledging to ensure that food and medicine are never used as tools of political pressure.

By the very phrase "coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion", a dark shadow is cast over any result that one State might hope to accomplish. There is something almost sinister at work when force, coercion and compulsion are at work as a means to an end. That is not the way of a civilized world, it cannot be acceptable within the family of nations and it should never be condoned, under any circumstances.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/57/L.4. Before giving the floor to the speaker in explanation of vote before the vote, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seat.

I give the floor to the representative of Denmark, who will speak on behalf of the European Union.

Mr. Christensen (Denmark)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union -- Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia -- and the associated countries Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as the European Free Trade Association country member of the European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, align themselves with this statement.

We wish to refer to our statement made on the adoption of resolution 55/6 on 26 October 2000.

The Acting President

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/57/L.4.

The Acting President

Before giving the floor to the speakers in explanation of vote after the vote, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seat.

Ms. Costa (United States)

The United States opposes this resolution. It serves as a direct challenge to the prerogative of sovereign States to conduct freely their commercial relations. Member States should understand, moreover, that this resolution is aimed at undermining the international community's ability to respond effectively to acts that, by their very nature and enormity, are offensive to international norms. There must be a consequence for such actions. Otherwise, offending States will have no incentive or reason to abandon them.

Unilateral and multilateral economic sanctions can be an effective means to achieve legitimate foreign policy objectives. They constitute an influential diplomatic tool. The United States is not alone in holding this view or in following this practice. The Charter itself provides for use of sanctions to change the behaviour of those who would challenge or seek to undermine international norms. It should be remembered that not too long ago, the unilateral and multilateral economic sanctions imposed on the racist regimes in South Africa and the then-Rhodesia underscored the international community's solidarity with the people of those countries, who were fighting for their dignity and freedom.

The United States resolve was not merely symbolic. It was real, and it took the form of carefully crafted economic decisions that spanned many years; and they had results. Those concrete measures, expressed in our national laws, had the broad support of the American people. Through those steps, positive change was realized. Those results-oriented actions were appropriate then and remain so today. The United States continues to believe that States should act with the highest of standards, not the lowest, thereby obviating the need for such measures.

The Acting President

I now give the floor to the representative of Canada.

Ms. Price (Canada)

After careful and lengthy consideration, Canada has decided to support the resolution just adopted as, in our view, it embodies important principles on the issue of extraterritorial application of national law. Nevertheless, we consider that the resolution could still benefit from clarifications to make it fully consistent with the relevant principles of international law. We sought to propose amendments that would have clarified the meaning of the text. We are disappointed that the sponsoring delegation chose not to respond.

Canada has, for many years, taken a firm position on the issues addressed in the resolution and has consistently voted in support of other General Assembly resolutions condemning the inappropriate extraterritorial reach of national laws. Canadian sanctions legislation does not allow for the adoption of such measures, as that would be inconsistent with Canadian policy and international law. Canada can and does exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction unilaterally. Such exercise is generally based on the objective nationality principle. Accordingly, Canada does not object to the assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction per se, but opposes conflicts created by such assertions of jurisdiction. More specifically, Canada opposes extraterritorial measures that contradict or undermine the laws or clearly enunciated policies of another State exercising concurrent jurisdiction on a territorial basis over the same conduct.

With respect to the resolution just adopted, Canada understands that the inclusion of the term "coercive", notably in operative paragraph 4, is intended to ensure that the scope of the resolution is meant to apply to the State that is the subject of the sanctions or to affected third States and their nationals and corporations.

Canada's understanding is that the inclusion of the word "coercive" is not intended to condemn unilateral prescriptive measures that apply the objective nationality principle. On this basis, my delegation has supported the resolution.

Mr. O'Brien (Australia)

Australia continues to oppose the application of extraterritorial unilateral economic coercive measures that affect third countries and, therefore, we support the central tenets of this draft resolution.

However, under certain extreme circumstances, it may be appropriate for States to take appropriate measures aimed at encouraging other Governments to cease violating their citizens' human rights and ignoring the rule of law.

In light of these concerns, Australia abstained in the vote on this resolution.

Mr. Sahakov (Armenia)

My delegation has just voted in favour of the resolution entitled "Elimination of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion".

Armenia condemns the continuing practice of unilateral coercive economic measures, particularly in the South Caucasus region. Such measures contradict the basic measures and norms of international law and the United Nations Charter, as well as the norms and regulations of the multilateral trading system. The imposition of such restrictive economic measures has a detrimental impact on developing and transitional countries, as in the case of landlocked Armenia, which, in addition to a geographical impediment, is suffering from a continuing blockade.

In this regard, the right of all States to economic, political, social and cultural development should be respected, and any violation of the principles of equality should be opposed and strongly condemned. An overall condemnation of unilateral economic coercion will have a positive impact on the complicated situation in our region.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote.

May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 31?