Mr. President, New Zealand congratulates
you on your election to lead the Assembly and offers you its support in your
task.
One year ago I stood on this rostrum and spoke about the Gulf crisis and
the way in which the United Nations, with strong leadership from the Security
Council, had shown a firmness of judgement and a commitment to the ideals of
the founders of the United Nations that reinforced the status and authority of
the Organization.
I spoke of my own country. New Zealand, a small nation in the south-west
Pacific, which supported the United Nations, in keeping with our tradition of
opposing tyranny and supporting freedom.
This year I have returned to this Organization even more confident of the
vital role of the United Nations in today's world, of the important
contribution each nation, be it large or small, can make to the achievement of
its ideals. Most important, however, I want to affirm the commitment of New
Zealand, a founder member of the United Nations, to ensuring that this
Organization adapts to meet the challenge of a world that has changed, is
changing and will continue to change in the years ahead. To do that, the
United Nations requires a vibrant, active General Assembly and a Security
Council that truly reflects the different regions and the different peoples of
the world.
The Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros-Ghali,, has made his views clear in
putting before this Assembly his report, "An Agenda for Peace". His message
is summed up in paragraphs 75 and 76, where he says:
"With the cold war ended we have drawn back from the brink of a
confrontation that threatened the world and, too often, paralysed our
Organization.
"Even as we celebrate our restored possibilities, there is a need to
ensure that the lessons of the past ... are learned and that the
errors ... are not repeated. For there may not be a third opportunity
for our planet ... ." (A/47/277, paras. 75-76)
New Zealand endorses that conclusion.
We can also take hope from the fact that at last both the Security
Council and the Assembly have the chance to work as they were originally
intended, free from crippling ideological competition. Through the Security
Council, and with the support of all the Members of the United Nations, we
have seen decisive action to implement collective security measures on a scale
never before possible.
There is much still to be done, but no longer need the people of the
world despair about impotence and inaction on the part of the United Nations.
In Cambodia, in Somalia, in the Balkans, in the Middle East, the United
Nations has moved to assist in the vital battle for human survival where
before there was only the prospect of continued death and destruction.
In our view, the Agenda for Peace will succeed only if we support an
agenda for action. This is no time for complacency. The heavy cloud of the
cold war has lifted. But over the years that cloud concealed many smaller
conflicts and tensions regional, national and ethnic. Freed from being
bottled up by the cold war, a growing and frightening tendency is exposed to
settle ancient differences by the use of force.
The Agenda for Peace also reminds us that there are other critical issues
which threaten not only the security of Member States but also the future of
the planet itself.
Poverty, disease, malnutrition, crippling levels of debt and negligible
economic growth are scourges in themselves. They can unleash despair and
anger that will destabilize political and social institutions.
Environmental degradation does not threaten only our immediate
surroundings and livelihoods; problems such as the depletion of the ozone
layer, the spread of toxic chemicals, climate change and the overfishing of
the seas put at risk the well-being of whole communities, and even the very
survival of certain small island countries.
Weapons of mass destruction continue to proliferate. We must take a
stand against those who are blind to the lessons of the past and remain
determined to acquire or expand their stocks of nuclear or other weapons of
mass destruction.
The Secretary-General reminds us, too, that
"social peace is as important as strategic or political peace".
It is clear that a root cause of insecurity and conflict at the international
level is the existence of social structures, policies and systems within
States which marginalize minorities or other groups. Such tension will be
resolved only when the social needs of the underprivileged are addressed. The
proposed United Nations social Summit could have a catalytic role to play in
this area. I suggest that it is only through tolerance and through talking to
one another that we can all encourage and achieve full respect for human
rights and implement the international standards as they were intended.
The other very important issues raised by the Secretary-General must be
considered thoroughly. This session of the Assembly provides the first
opportunity to debate them and I wish to outline New Zealand's views.
First, let me refer to peace and security. New Zealand stands very
firmly behind the United Nations as an instrument for collective action when
security is threatened. The situations which the world wants the United
Nations to respond to today are not the same as those of the cold-war era.
New Zealand supports concepts such as preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and
peace-building. As a world body we know that consensus is important but
collectively we must be bold, we must be innovative.
New Zealand believes it is vital that the United Nations respond to
situations which threaten the peace or cry out for global action, wherever in
the world they may occur. We cannot, we must not, allow parts of the world to
be marginalized or thought less important than others. The tragedy in Somalia
is different from, but of equal horror to, that in what was Yugoslavia.
Secondly, I want to endorse strongly the conclusion that there is an
inextricable link between security and economic development. This is not a
new or radical idea. Every political leader knows from domestic experience
that a nation feels more secure when its economy is performing strongly.
People in every country have rapidly growing expectations, but with the global
economy very sluggish leaders are finding it difficult to satisfy these
ambitions.
Further, we need major sustainable growth in the global economy if the
development concerns identified at the Earth summit at Rio are to be achieved.
One fact, though self-evident, must be repeated: sustainable and
equitable economic growth and development will be possible only if there is an
open and fair international trading system.
As a world community we need the courage to pull down the artificial
barriers to economic growth. The solution is in our hands. We need leaders
to say "Yes" to fair trade and "No" to their protectionist lobbies. If we
knock out the selfish and inward-looking tendencies to protectionism and
subsidization, we will create a surge in global trade and real growth in the
global economy. It will provide the opportunities we all want - so let's do
it.
The alternative is bleak. History shows only too clearly what can happen
if there is a deep and prolonged global recession. Political extremists come
to the fore and begin to manipulate desperate people. Disintegrating
economies fall into the hands of dictators, and international peace and
security are quickly put at risk.
But this need not be so. It is not inevitable. A breakthrough in the
multilateral trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), is achievable, given the right degree of political
will. There is a risk that the political will may ebb away, that the focus
may be lost, that excuses for delay may become more important than reasons to
press on. Should that prove true, then the bold reform set out in the Dunkel
text will go down as one more lost opportunity. We cannot afford that so we
New Zealand - continue to urge the European Community and the United States to
resolve their differences and to put the GATT talks back on track for a
successful conclusion. For world economic growth, it is not an optional
extra; it is essential.
Just as economics and security are closely linked, the world seems to
have accepted, just in time, that there is a third element to this equation.
It is the environment. Everything we do has an impact on the environment. If
we cripple the environment, it will affect our economies, our societies and
our security. Moreover, these impacts will not respect national boundaries.
Before the Earth summit, some important first steps were taken. The
Montreal Protocol proved that the world had the political will to deal with
the problem of ozone depletion. The General Assembly itself responded to the
challenge of drift-net fishing and has secured a moratorium on that
ecologically-destructive technique of fishing.
The Earth summit, under the auspices of the United Nations, has given us
a challenging work programme, "Agenda 21", to match the Secretary-General's
proposals, "An Agenda for Peace". But international agendas only work if
nations are committed to their success.
New Zealand went to the Earth summit committed to working for consensus
solutions to the problems of environment and development which ultimately
threaten us all.
New Zealand is a country endowed with a rich environmental inheritance.
But we understand that our good fortune does not give us the moral right to
point the finger at other countries which are struggling for their very
survival. At the same time, our considerable experience in sustainable
resource management - for example, in the development of new forests can be
helpful in the search for practical solutions to problems of resource
depletion.
As part of New Zealand's commitment to environmental protection and to
providing sustainable resources, we have just agreed to go ahead with the
planting of another 200,000 hectares of forest.
At the Earth summit, we accepted a commitment to augment our aid
programme as soon as possible in order to assist in the prompt and effective
implementation of Agenda 21. Our development assistance projects, based on
consultation with our partner countries, particularly in the South Pacific,
have always had a strong focus on the environment and on sustainable
development.
But aid alone is not enough. New Zealand, like many countries which
depend on agricultural exports, has been severely disadvantaged by a world
trading system which handicaps non-subsidized and efficient producers. We
therefore strongly support the call in Agenda 21 for an open, transparent and
non-discriminatory trading system that reveals the real environmental costs of
unsustainable production and enables all countries to pursue truly sustainable
development on a secure and equitable basis.
To achieve that would be to achieve a real foundation for peace and
progress. I am not making these observations from an ivory tower. For its
part. New Zealand already has one of the most open economies in the world.
Yes, there was a short-term cost in achieving that, but now we are reaping
rewards through higher productivity and international competitiveness.
Despite the progress made from the ending of the cold war, we have not
yet removed the threat from weapons of mass destruction.
New Zealand warmly welcomed the agreement reached by President Bush and
President Yeltsin in June. The two largest nuclear arsenals are to be reduced
by some 70 per cent. That is remarkable progress and both leaders deserve and
have our thanks. They have made historic progress but we must keep the
momentum up. Unless we take decisive action, the dangers from nuclear
proliferation will increase.
Therefore we must build on the leadership shown by two nuclear-weapon
States in declaring moratoriums. We must advance the goal, which New Zealand
has unwaveringly pursued, of a comprehensive test-ban treaty. We must
strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards regime. And we
must secure an indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons in 1995.
France's decision to suspend testing has been widely welcomed by New
Zealand and Pacific island countries in the South Pacific Forum region. It
has opened the way for significantly more positive relations between France
and the region, which I welcome. We hope the moratorium will be maintained,
and copied by others.
Another milestone approaches, with the presentation to this session of
the General Assembly of a treaty banning another class of weapons of mass
destruction: chemical weapons. Patient and persistent efforts over 20 years
will have their reward. New Zealand has strongly supported those efforts and
intends to be an original signatory to the treaty. We urge other countries to
take the same step.
And we must not ignore the continued proliferation of conventional
armaments. There are legitimate concerns about the levels and availability of
highly destructive conventional weapons. The implementation of the United
Nations Register of Conventional Arms would be a useful first step on the way
to greater accountability in this area.
Finally, I want to touch on the institutional issues the
Secretary-General has raised. We strongly endorse the role that is envisaged
for the United Nations to work with, and on occasions through, regional
organizations that have some special contribution they can make. Already in
South Africa we see cooperation between the United Nations and the
Commonwealth beginning to bear positive fruit. In Somalia the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), the League of Arab States and the Organization of the
Islamic Conference have contributed positively to the United Nations mission.
In the Americas the Organization of American States (OAS) has played an
increasingly effective role.
The United Nations role in Cambodia is of particular importance in this
regard. The operation is unique and deserves the highest praise. But the
countries of the region - which include New Zealand, with 100 men and women in
the United Nations force have also played a major part in bringing about the
conditions necessary for a successful United Nations involvement. Regional
organizations such as the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have
been indispensable in this process.
The fact of the matter is that the United Nations cannot do everything.
Neither do I expect it to do everything - but free from the shackles of the
past it now has a new authority which it must exercise wisely. To maintain
its authority we must ensure that democratic principles are applied to the
workings of the United Nations itself. That means that the small must be
represented in major United Nations decision-making as well as the large.
It means that there must be fair and regular rotation among Member
States. And it means we must evolve processes that will allow constructive
communication between the Security Council and the wider United Nations
membership so that broad coalitions in support of Security Council action can
be forged while preserving room for quick and decisive actions where necessary.
New Zealand's commitment to a strong, effective and democratic United
Nations has never wavered. At the beginning, at the San Francisco Conference
in 1945, New Zealand championed the broadest possible participation in
decision-making. Over the years we have backed up our words with a real
commitment to United Nations peace-keeping efforts. We have participated thus
far in 15 such operations: New Zealanders have worn the blue beret in Croatia
and Bosnia, Lebanon, Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Namibia, Angola,
Cambodia, the Congo and Yemen. In addition. New Zealand supplied personnel to
assist the United Nations with mine removal in Afghanistan.
In conclusion, I want to return to the two agendas which are before this
Assembly and which seek to achieve a new partnership of nations. Nothing is
more important than the Agenda for Peace and the Agenda for the Environment
and Sustainable Development. The United Nations Secretary-General and the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development have both identified
monumental challenges for the General Assembly for several years to come.
They also highlight the reality of global interdependence. The way ahead has
to lie in cooperation rather than confrontation, in a recognition that the
future of each of us is tied up with the future of us all and that no agenda,
no matter how noble its goals, will succeed unless first and foremost we are
prepared to work for them. New Zealand is.