The General
Assembly's choice of Mr. Ganev to lead the work of its forty-seventh session
is a worthy tribute to his outstanding qualities and to the role his country,
Bulgaria, has always played in international relations. I convey the
congratulations of the Republic of Madagascar to him, and on behalf of my
delegation assure him of our cooperation.
We are grateful to his predecessor, Mr. Samir Shihabi, for having
accorded the strengthening of the General Assembly's authority the highest
priority among his concerns although this did not keep him from discharging
his other responsibilities with grace, competence and skill, even in the most
sensitive of circumstances.
I turn now to our Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a member
of our National Academy. He is certainly aware of the great regard in which
he is held in Madagascar, and we know that his experience, his sense of duty
and his humanism are all guarantees of the success of our Organization. In
this time of profound change, requiring the involvement of all, we again
express our support for and confidence in him.
Finally, we address our best wishes to, and welcome, the 13 new Members:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. We are pleased to be able to count upon their
invaluable cooperation and to offer them our own in return.
When I spoke at last year's session, I mentioned the need for a new
charter in referring to the prospects of what was being offered us as the "new
world order". I will not repeat my conclusion, especially since the
declarations adopted by the recent Summit Conference of the non-aligned
countries have reinforced the sense that my suggestion, as daring as it may
have been, only reflects the aspirations of a fairly significant sector of
humanity. I realize nevertheless, in the light of the events of these past
12 months, that it might not seem timely not because it in any way disturbs
the conservatives, but because we are unfortunately compelled to yield to the
vagaries of the international situation.
And we ask ourselves: At what point can we truly speak of the new world
order? Shall we call it the new order, the new world order, or the new
international order? Are we sure of winning consensus around a concept that
can only be the fruit of joint efforts? Indeed, before we talk of order, let
us try to look within ourselves and around us!
Rare are the developments that cause us satisfaction. To be sure, work
on the chemical weapons convention has finally been concluded; the operation
in Cambodia seems to be supported by the parties; the international peace
conference on the Middle East has shown signs of rather positive developments,
in spite of some understandable hesitancy; in South Africa, the recent
agreement between De Klerk and Mandela should pick up the broken thread of
negotiations in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa; the political
situation in Angola, Mozambique, and El Salvador is brightening; democracy is
regaining stature and acceptability everywhere; and the Earth Summit in Rio
unfolded in the best possible conditions.
However, shadows persist. There are instability, human tragedy, and
political chaos in many countries; the eruption of a nation and the threat of
an entire people's disappearance in Somalia; violence and massacres in the
Balkans; floods of refugees in Africa, especially, in Asia, and even in
Europe; deadlock in Cyprus; foot-dragging in Western Sahara; human rights
trampled by hatred, intolerance, and xenophobia; monetary and financial crisis
in the industrialized countries; and mounting poverty in third world countries.
This record, though incomplete, is not very encouraging. In any event,
it hardly lends itself to prognostications on what the new world order is to
be. We will indeed be able to discourse validly on the subject once we have
mastered disorder and political, economic, and social insecurity on the
national, regional, and international levels. This finding, whose particular
bitterness pains us, should not inhibit our ability to reflect and to judge.
Nor can anyone say that we are entitled to hide behind the sense of malaise
indignation, even in order to refuse to seek joint solutions, however
imperfect, to the problems that we have often created for ourselves.
As a Member of the United Nations, and above and beyond any
considerations of national interest or ideological affinity inasmuch as
ideologies still exist - it is up to us to affirm and constantly reaffirm the
central role of our Organization in establishing peace and security,
prerequisites for progress and social justice. That is the essence of the
1945 Charter. These will remain the goals of the charter that will need to
replace it. That is why the Non-Aligned Movement again took up this theme
from a fresh but not unprecedented perspective, so as to apply it to the
democratization of international relations and the development of solidarity
and equality, not forgetting the promotion of legality.
One criticism of the 1945 Charter is that it does not take sufficiently
into account the desirable balance between the main bodies of the
Organization the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and
Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice,
and the Secretariat. To each body its own responsibilities and attributes!
Each historical era has its own limitations and its own imperatives. Since
people continue to call for a comprehensive approach to problems in order to
achieve integrated solutions, it is important to take a new, pragmatic look
ever respectful of the spirit of the Charter at certain provisions of the
Charter.
Let us take the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the
Security Council: Exercised on behalf of the entire Organization, they arose
in the situation that obtained immediately upon the Second World War. Now,
the alliance has not survived the victory over totalitarianism. The cold war,
which in some sense crystallized and distorted the use of the veto, is now
part of history. The same applies to the concept of "enemy". Meanwhile,
newly independent States and new Member States have called for participation
on a more responsible basis and a more equitable allocation of what they see
as privileges in fact, the implementation of democratic rules within the
Organization. It is therefore not astonishing to hear speak at one point of
expanding the Security Council, at another of eliminating the veto right, or
at another still of extending or modifying the exercise of that right.
One fact remains: the right of veto, as envisioned in the 1945 Charter,
is challenged by everyone throughout the world except those who have it. Let
us apply the rules of the democratic game, and concede at least one point:
the 1945 Charter can and must be revised. It will still be necessary for the
five permanent members to agree as a whole to renounce their implicit veto
right when it comes time for ratifying whatever changes the sovereign Assembly
may adopt. That is the only way for us to overcome the impasse.
It is necessary at the same time to define more rigorously the concept of
international security not to abridge the authority of the Security Council
but to strengthen that of other bodies. Political or strategic circumstances
and considerations have given that concept political, economic, social,
humanitarian, ecological and even legal ramifications. It is thus possible,
invoking jurisprudence, to recommend measures against a State or a regime in
unexpected spheres, arbitrarily chosen on the basis of defence considerations
or the promotion of special national or regional interests.
In that context, we want to state our appreciation for the
Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace". Despite the rigid framework
within which that study was carried out, its vision is stimulating, its
analyses relevant and its recommendations acceptable. We hope it will help
shed new light on the concept of responsibility free from hegemony, so that
this notion will attract more open, unambiguous support.
I felt it necessary to stress the democratization of international
relations because the strengthening of the Organization depends on it. Only
an organization whose central role is set out in the documents, practice and
acceptance of its members can guarantee the establishment and maintenance of
relations among nations based on trust, equity and equal participation.
We lay stress on the same principles when we address the problems of
development, for we are convinced that their solution depends in large part on
the status of international peace and security. So long as the international
political situation is under a burden, the search for a solution to the
development crisis will be in vain. The Organization indeed, the entire
United Nations system is working along those lines, and we are glad that
debate both at the eighth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD) and at the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development was marked by strengthened international cooperation for
development. This theme reappeared at the high-level discussions in the
Economic and Social Council. This awareness is reflected also in an
acknowledgement that stress must be placed on the role of the United Nations
as the only forum in which we can deal with these problems in an integrated
manner.
We must draw up universally accepted principles and rules; ensure
coordination among the various development forums; harmonize the modalities
for action by financial, monetary and trading institutions; and above all be
aware of the political dimension of the decisions we shall have to make at all
levels. That is the role of the Economic and Social Council; we must
streamline and consolidate its functions in analysis and orientation to make
it more effective system-wide.
On the institutional level, we note a willingness to create controls
and the beginnings of that process although unequal means do not always
favour consensus among the bodies concerned.
Then there is poverty. It is unbearable for its victims; it is
unacceptable in a world that espouses solidarity. It has always been the lot
of Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, where economically
fragile, poorly integrated, dislocated, marginalized societies barely survive,
side by side with pockets of prosperity.
I want to make special reference to my own continent of Africa, where
poverty and its attendant disease, natural disasters and social conflicts have
devastating, degrading effects. How can we ignore the fact that by the end of
the century, although we expect 400 million fewer impoverished people in the
world as a whole, there will be 100 million more in Africa?
We are sometimes criticized for self-pity and for not making the efforts
necessary to eliminate poverty in our countries. We are not immune to such
criticism, but is it not true also that poverty will be eradicated only if the
pace of economic growth is accelerated and if together we can solve the
problems that are the underlying causes of underdevelopment? Give us the
tools for action, quickly and under tolerable terms.
In that context, I want to stress the urgency of reconsidering the
question of our external debt; initiatives taken thus far have had no
significant impact, despite the best intentions and despite a number of
generous gestures made. We believe that initiatives must be reviewed and
expanded to ensure the resumption of development and growth. To be complete,
these initiatives must include additional resources, whether these come from
official aid, the "peace dividend" or transfers in the form of investment.
In that context, we hope an international conference on development
financing will take place and will respond to our difficulties in implementing
the various programmes and plans of action that have been adopted for the
development of the countries of the South.
Environmental protection and the promotion of sustainable development are
the great challenges of the 1990s and beyond. We must therefore ensure the
swift implementation of Agenda 21. Though an ambitious programme, it is
commensurate with our respective responsibilities.
Madagascar welcomes the convening in 1993 of the World Conference on
Human Rights, in 1994 of the International Conference on Population and
Development, and in 1995 of the World Summit for Social Development.
The holding of those conferences reassures us in our determination to
establish a society based upon social justice and true democracy, as reflected
in the Constitution recently adopted by the people of Madagascar. We wish to
express our gratitude to the Secretary-General and to the institutions and the
friendly countries which have supported us in this process.
New prospects for action are opening before us in the political, economic
and social spheres. We have discussed them, reflected on them, and compared
and contrasted our ideas regarding them. We have not always managed to avoid
recrimination and confrontation, but over four decades which will soon be
five we have constantly sought the best ways and means of promoting and
perfecting cooperation between our peoples and between our States. With this
cooperation we have everything to gain; without it we have everything to lose.
This certainty could have been a valid guide for us in our common quest
for more peace, more justice and more progress in a word, for bringing about
a more humane world. We could have succeeded long ago had the course of
events been more in our favour and had we agreed together to turn our visions
into reality. General instability led us to doubt ourselves and also one
another. However, the fact that we are gathered here bears witness to our
readiness and determination to turn towards the United Nations in order to
draw renewed certainty from it.
This is not a risk-free undertaking, since it reveals our weaknesses and
shortcomings. It is, however, worth making the effort in order to enable us
to adjust our commitment to the challenges that continually assail us. Let us
hope that it will lead to a renewal which is beneficial to the Organization
and which in the final analysis will help us to keep the promises we have made
to our peoples.