Philippines

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate you as you take on the honour and responsibility of leading the Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. Allow me to express our deep appreciation to His Excellency Minister Didier Opertti, who led us last year with admirable efficiency, insight and, on occasion, good humour. I take this opportunity also to commend the Secretary-General for his dedication and inspiring leadership in the service of our Organization. I would also like to welcome Presidents Teburoro Tito, Rene Harris and King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, their delegations and the people of Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga, all fellow members of the Asia-Pacific family, to the United Nations. Their membership in our Organization should further bolster the global consensus on peace and progress in the world. Almost a decade ago the cold war ended and we are today at the doorstep of a new century. Over those years, we achieved much as individual nations and as Members of this Organization. Yet, our collective search for peace and progress for all continues. After many years of eloquent debates, after hearing many persuasive proposals and formulations, how well indeed have we mastered the language of peace. But the wars and strife that afflict our world, even as we speak, show that we have neither fully learned nor lived the ways of peace. As at its founding, our Organization is faced with the dire spectre of countless multitudes living in utter dread and misery. The much-touted new global order, where nations live in harmony and peace, where growth and sustainable development are rights and not privileges and where justice rules and human rights are upheld remains a promise. We encounter newer threats to the peace, and old threats are re-emerging. Poverty stalks many lands. Far too many people have their human rights ignored or violated. Our very Earth protests decades of unbridled abuse. One of the clear victors at the end of the cold war was the free market. For most of our lives, the assault upon the very idea and practice of the free market came from an ideology. Today, even that ideology embraces the methods, if not the spirit, of the free market. It now seems that the growing reach of the free market, or 9 globalization, is held back only by our inability to adapt to it fast enough. For so many years, East Asia was admired for its success with globalization. The so-called East Asian miracle was little more than our region’s economic response to it. Our fast growth doubled our incomes and moved tens of millions of our people out of poverty. Up until July 1997, we thought all was well. Now we know better; we have learned our lessons. Our difficulties could have been less severe or avoided with better public and corporate governance, with better management of financial systems, with greater transparency and accountability; in other words, with greater openness, which is the heart and spirit of the free market or any truly free system. Happily, the crisis did not destroy the conditions underpinning East Asia’s growth formula of outward-oriented industrialization. A propensity for high savings, abundant highly educated human resources, higher productivity and economic reform policies remain. Today, East Asia is on the road to recovery. Consumer confidence is rising. Exports are booming. Inflation has been tamed. Investors are coming back. Japan, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia are all growing again. The Philippine economy will grow by more than 3 percent this year and over 5 percent next year. Yet, there is no retreat on our core reform agenda. Economic restructurings continue. Greater economic integration goes on. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, for instance, took extraordinary steps to underscore their commitment to free trade and investment. During its Hanoi summit last year, ASEAN resolved to accelerate, not retard, the establishment of the ASEAN free trade area to the year 2002. We are accelerating the implementation of the ASEAN Investment Area and ASEAN Industrial Cooperation schemes. We have also moved towards greater financial cooperation by establishing at the Asian Development Bank a regional economic monitoring and surveillance mechanism. It should encourage transparency, institute better coordination of economic policies and help ward off future financial crises. However, internal reforms cannot be enough. The crisis also exposed the weaknesses lurking in the international system. Realizing early on that the phenomenon of globalization should be addressed multilaterally, the United Nations has sought the cooperation of other multilateral organizations to strengthen normative, legal and institutional frameworks in the hope that the global economy can be managed more effectively and, perhaps more importantly, more equitably. For the yawning gap between poor and rich nations continues to widen, and the pace and level of development of countries are, alas, more uneven. In a fast-globalizing and interdependent world, augmenting the ability of developing countries to participate fully in the global economy is the win-win solution for all. Insecure market access, high levels of protection and support of agriculture in industrialized countries and the continued high tariffs on industrial products from developing countries obviate greater progress for all. The international trading system must adopt a new paradigm in which sustainable development should be the central theme. The World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference to be held in Seattle late this year should be not only an opportunity to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. It should also be an occasion to imbue the process with a sense of direction that responds to the development needs of developing countries. The global financial architecture must be strengthened. There is urgent need, as the Committee for Development Policy pointed out in its 1998 report to the Economic and Social Council, for the coherent development and effective monitoring of international standards and codes of conduct for private financial management and capital flows. There is also need to curb destructive competition and inconsistency in national regulatory frameworks. More and more, countries and regions need to reach out to one another in the spirit of cooperation and partnership for development. The ten-year-old Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, or APEC, is founded on this conviction. So is the much younger Asia-Europe Meeting, or ASEM. And it heartens us that the East Asia-Latin America Forum, having recently taken its first steps, may soon join in the more sustained and structured effort to link up for global progress. The Philippines anticipates a similar region-to-region initiative with Africa and will contribute its utmost to any such initiative. From a historical perspective, we are still at the very early stage of globalization. With globalization having the potential to grow exponentially, as do the revolutions in 10 technology and information that fuel it, this early stage is perhaps the most critical one. Only earnest international cooperation can ensure that this process does not lead to the marginalization of any nation. But, as our recent experience in East Asia shows, economic progress alone cannot and does not engender the optimal well-being of nations or peoples. Progress in ensuring political stability and security should accompany growth. Any asymmetry in the pace, breadth and depth of change in these facets of the political economy is a seed of future instability. Moreover, just as our economic prospects are determined by our participation in the global economy, our future peace and security will depend not only on our internal resilience, but also on the active cooperation of others. In East Asia the most urgent undertaking for ensuring peace is the reconfiguration of the strategic security structure in the region. The holes left gaping by the end of the cold war must be filled; the new parameters of the regional security equation must be defined. The situation in the Taiwan Strait is a concern to us all. So are the issues of missile development in the Korean peninsula and nuclear development and uneasy peace in South Asia. The South China Sea remains a potential flashpoint. We are hopeful that, in addition to measures advancing regional economic and financial cooperation, a regional code of conduct in the South China Sea can be adopted at the summit of leaders of ASEAN, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea that we are hosting in Manila in November. East Asia has clearly not yet settled all its great issues of war and peace. But we are trying hard and succeeding in some important ways. At the sixth ASEAN Regional Forum — the only forum on security that includes all the major Powers with a stake in our region — we agreed to draft rules of procedure by which preventive diplomacy could bolster and complement regional confidence-building measures. Last December we agreed to move closer to the full activation of the ASEAN High Council and the dispute settlement mechanisms mandated by the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. The 5 May 1999 Agreement on East Timor and the free, fair and orderly conduct of the 30 August consultations there are truly significant developments for lasting peace in our region. For the Philippines, it is of the utmost importance that the chaos there be quickly resolved and the horrendous human suffering be stanched. We therefore welcome Indonesia’s decision to invite the assistance of the United Nations and of a multinational force, and its creation of a national commission of inquiry to investigate and bring to justice persons responsible for the atrocities and human rights violations in East Timor. We also commend the Secretary-General and the neighbouring and other countries for responding quickly to restore order and facilitate humanitarian relief in East Timor. As a fraternal neighbour of the peoples of Indonesia and East Timor, we will contribute all we can to ameliorate the humanitarian situation and put back on track a peaceful transition. Elsewhere, the Sharm el-Sheikh Agreement is a positive development for the Middle East peace process. We are also heartened by the agreements reached recently in Sierra Leone and the Congo, and between Eritrea and Ethiopia. We hope that the resolution of the immediate crisis in Kosovo will soon create the conditions conducive to the establishment of lasting peace there. It is true that we have avoided major inter-State conflicts of late, and that States are more willing to resolve disputes peacefully. But the continuing tensions in various regions of the world could still draw nations into conflict and divert attention and resources away from development. For the Philippines, regional cooperation provides a key to managing potential and actual conflict situations. We have seen this in the efforts of the ASEAN troika, the United Nations and the international community to restore political stability in Cambodia, and in the dispatch of a multinational force to East Timor with authorization from the Security Council and upon the invitation of the Indonesian Government. We agree with the Secretary-General that it is necessary and desirable to provide support for regional and subregional arrangements and initiatives on matters of international peace and security. The United Nations, lacking the capacity, resources and expertise to address all issues unique to each region of the world, should complement rather than supplant regional peace efforts. This, however, will require significant investment from all of us. In the first instance, we need to invest a lot of goodwill and build trust in one another so that clearer criteria and a more predictable basis can guide Security Council authorization for all types of peace missions. We realize that no two situations are the same, but inaction due to stalemates in the Council, in the face of serious threats to peace and human life, threatens the credibility, legitimacy and future effectiveness of our Organization. Secondly, the Organization and its Member States need to invest in practical steps that can be taken in the areas of training assistance, joint peacekeeping exercises, greater participation in standby arrangements, partnerships between countries whose contingents require equipment support and those able to provide it, and closer cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations. And thirdly, perhaps more important, we need to invest our work and way of thinking with greater flexibility and innovation. The nature of conflict has changed. Crises and humanitarian situations now involve many more actors, from Governments and international organizations to non- State players. And their effects, just like their causes, are more complex and far-reaching. Let us face it, much of what was considered before as the internal affairs of a State is not so any more — or ever. Humanity is indivisible. Peace is indivisible. State sovereignty is important; it will always be. So is individual sovereignty. That the redefinition of one should coincide with the renewed consciousness of the other is, to my delegation, not an accident. These developments need not even be seen as parallel, as in they do not meet; for in truth, they converge. But we agree with the Secretary-General that the more important question is how the United Nations — the only truly universal, if imperfect, arm of the international community — is to respond to the political, human rights and humanitarian crises affecting so much of the world. We have to be more innovative in our approaches to problems relating to massive and systematic human rights violations. We agree that empowering the United Nations enough to match its Charter mandates in today’s and tomorrow’s world requires that we, the Member States, update our concept of national interest. Last year, before this Assembly, I articulated Philippine policy, thus: “Like all other States, the Philippines pursues foreign policy to promote national security and development. But we view national security beyond the traditional concerns of sovereignty and territorial integrity. For in a global regime characterized by evolving multipolarity of political and military power and by growing economic and financial interdependence, with all their attendant opportunities and risks, my nation’s peace and prosperity increasingly depend on stability and growth abroad. As President Estrada has said: Our way of life, our fundamental values and our institutions can flourish and find true expression only if we enjoy political stability, economic solidarity, socio-cultural cohesion, moral consensus and ecological balance, at home and with our partners in the world. Our national security and development” [or in short, our national interest] “demand that we actively advance the internationally shared goals of freedom, openness, peace, prosperity and justice.” (A/53/PV.17, p.6) After the events of the last year, we are more convinced that the collective interest, our common interest, is my country’s national interest. The need to reform the United Nations is our common interest. Reforms should not only seek to make the United Nations more efficient; they should make it truly responsive to the new demands of international peace, security and development. The Security Council, with its wide mandate and leadership role, should be at the centre of change and reform itself. It should be truly representative, democratic, transparent and accountable. The use of the veto should be rationalized. The day may come when we shall have achieved consensus on the reforms that we wish for our Organization. The day may also come — and soon I hope — that the financial morass our Organization is in will have passed. But while these are critical to the very survival of the United Nations, the continued existence of our Organization would be far more meaningful if we could invest it with a new openness and greater trust. The Philippines believes that to achieve this, we must start at home, in our own regions. We must, in appropriate circumstances, be more open to hearing the views of others and offering our own, even on issues deemed too controversial. A new openness would reflect the boldness with which we should renew the promise of a new era. The United Nations proved its great worth in this century. Its continued success in the next will depend entirely on us, on the goals we hope to achieve with it, on 12 what we are willing to invest in it. After all, we are the United Nations.