Uruguay

Perhaps the term “globalization”, which occurs so frequently in so many decisions nowadays, best describes the international system which prevails in the present decade and which, under the influence of a growing and close interdependence, will extend into the twenty-first century. Admittedly, the term is not a precise one that sums up the broad and complex range of supranational phenomena that have been emerging since 1989, the year that symbolizes the end of the cold war. It is undoubtedly a term that is indicative of the fact that today the cause-and-effect relationship in the economic, political and even the cultural sphere transcends traditional national borders more than ever. Interdependence is today more pronounced than ever before in history: markets, capital flows, research and production do not coincide with the political map. The industrial assembly lines of advanced technology ignore national borders, often making it difficult to determine the origin of a finished product, since its components come from such diverse sources. The political boundaries of States are no longer boundaries of economic production and processes. The network of multinational corporations has expanded to the extent that transactions between their subsidiaries account for one quarter of world trade. In the face of the fluctuation and volatility of international electronic transactions, the central banks of the most developed countries already have difficulty controlling the exchange rates of their currencies or the level of interest rates. The recent establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is seen as the institutional culmination of this global trend towards liberalization of trade in goods and services and as a force conducive to interdependence. Accordingly, globalization, despite the various rates at which it operates in different parts of the world — from the slow, deliberate pace at which it proceeds in countries with agrarian economies to the dizzying rapidity of its progress in those possessing advanced technologies — appears to be the distinguishing mark of 4 the post-cold-war era. This phenomenon increasingly lends itself to the dominance of a system of echoes and reflections between nations, of all manner of interrelationships, which in theory should contribute to international stability, since according to classical doctrine, the risks of military confrontation are reduced when nations become more interdependent economically and financially. Nevertheless, recent events have revealed the contrary: new sources of tension and conflict have emerged on the international scene, as well as new unconventional forms of violence and crime that affect world peace and destabilize coexistence within and between democratic societies. In this setting of globalization and interdependence, the United Nations — with its universal composition, its agglutinative structure that brings together countries at the most varied levels of human development and ethnic or religious composition, its institutional capacity to act as a point of articulation or a sounding board for all concerns or aspirations that extend beyond the local, national or regional level — would be in an ideal position to play a leading and decisive role. In other words, this Organization is the forum that, by the nature and magnitude of its missions, should embody or interpret more faithfully than any other institution these compelling, topical phenomena of globalization and interdependence. Yet, this distinctive role of the United Nations remains an unrealized vision. It must be asked, then, whether the United Nations, an organic manifestation of the global system that has taken shape in this decade, is capable of effective, systematic action in preventive diplomacy. We would take it one step further and ask what our own national responsibility is, as a democratic State and a founding Member of the United Nations, in strengthening its role in the face of new challenges. Although this may appear simplistic, it is possible to conceive of war as a consequence of poverty, injustice, overpopulation or poverty. But if these conditions have to be eliminated before peace is feasible, then preventing or restricting hostile tensions becomes a Utopian exercise. For this reason, we believe that there is an urgent need to take an up-to-date, modern look at how the United Nations should react and act in response to the new threats to peace, and at what its capacity should be to respond to the phenomena inherent in the recent or current forms of globalization. On considering these questions, we shall certainly come up against an unavoidable obstacle: that of the nation in its traditional form and as the basic unit on which the structure of the United Nations was built. This nation no longer exercises a monopoly over international decisions, and consequently is not the exclusive determinant of their legitimacy. To some extent, this phenomenon may be similar to that described as the emergence of the imprecise State, found in a wide variety of non-State political bodies or agents that have an international impact through the intricate network of non-governmental organizations and multinational political movements whose proliferation is another sign of the new interdependence, and which play an increasingly active role in the management of the world system. Undoubtedly, Governments, as the executives of the political decisions of States, retain their essential powers in matters of diplomacy, security, defence, macroeconomics and currency. Obviously, the United Nations, sustained by the will of Governments, has acted and continues to act as a summarizer or synthesizer of those various wills, without prejudice to the greater or lesser influence of the military or financial powers of its Member States. For this reason, quite naturally, the activity or inactivity of the Organization depends on the concerns or indifference of national Governments, or on the way in which those Governments articulate their consensus or disagreement. But other actors have also taken the international stage, and they are not always a part of the multiplicity of non-governmental organizations. There are also ethnic groups not assimilated into an externally imposed nationality, so-called region-States, with growing links to the world economy and decreasing links to national authorities, as well as religious movements that transcend frontiers and inflame fanaticism which, in some cases, has terrorist effects. We therefore see a dual and contradictory process: globalization and fragmentation. On the one hand, interdependence has given rise to an increasingly interlinked world in which entities influence each other mutually, and this in theory would be conducive to the strengthening of political units and the formation of mega-States or large regional blocs. On the other hand, and as a consequence of the progressive impact of these new actors on the international scene, fragmentation has also emerged. Since its establishment, the United Nations has seen the number of Member States increase almost fivefold, and at present, approximately one third of these countries has been significantly affected by insurgent or dissident movements or Governments in exile. For all of these reasons, which are associated with this dialectical process of globalization and fragmentation, 5 with the growing international importance of a heterogeneous collection of new actors and with the emergence of non-conventional threats to peace that cannot be reconciled through traditional mechanisms of collective security, we need to rethink our Organization and to act in consequence. The restructuring of the United Nations is certainly not a new issue. On its thirtieth, fortieth and fiftieth anniversaries, efforts at revision, or rather at reform, emerged, aimed at achieving greater efficiency in the pursuit of its purposes. Unfortunately, however, the effort currently under way, like its predecessors, does not go to the root of the problem, which lies far deeper than the pursuit of administrative efficiency or the rationalization of functions. If we evaluate the current efforts to restructure the United Nations, we see clearly that in practice virtually all of the reforms being studied have no more than a procedural or formal impact, and do not make a decisive contribution to strengthening the system, or at least its substance, especially if we bear in mind that this Organization exists at a period in history characterized most distinctly by an accelerated pace of change. Uruguay fully and spontaneously agrees with the widespread aspiration for change. Like the vast majority of States represented here, our country feels a deep-seated, natural inclination in favour of any means or instrument that, at the global or regional level, prompts or compels nations to conduct themselves in accordance with law. For countries such as ours, which are founded on the rule of international law, it is essential to support any effort to guarantee the legal order, the principles of law, and the rule of law in relations among States. This is not simply a rhetorical reaffirmation of our desire for peace or our conviction that international law must prevail. Uruguay truly takes the principles of the Charter and the purposes of this Organization as its own, from the maintenance of peace and security — reflected in the fact that our country contributes the largest number of troops per capita to international peacekeeping operations — to the recognition of the primacy of international law — reflected in our being the first country to unconditionally accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Our position with regard to the United Nations is thus consistent with our historical definition of ourselves as a nation, a definition anchored in respect for international commitments and strict compliance with the principles of international law in all areas in which States bear responsibility. With reference to the agenda for the present session, and without prejudice to the statements the delegation of Uruguay will be making in the various bodies of the Assembly, we believe it appropriate to make a few brief comments on some items of particular interest. It is clear that the reform of the Security Council has captured the attention of the international community, precisely because of the post-cold-war changes I have mentioned. The potential impact of the Council on the evaluation, prevention or easing of international conflicts, and the effective application of the principle of legal equality among States make it necessary to have greater democratization or transparency in the decision-making process and more equitable geographical distribution in the composition of the Council. Uruguay has already expressed its support for increasing the number of permanent members on the Council in the light of present-day world realities, but the number of non-permanent members should also be increased, precisely because of the need for greater transparency and greater representativeness. While many proposals for change have been put forward, we should at the very least all agree that the Council’s future composition should be designed so that the quest for more representativeness does not adversely affect the Council’s operational efficiency. With regard to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East, and despite the various obstacles that continue to hamper the consolidation of a broad and stable peace, it is essential that the international community maintain its support for the peace process initiated in Madrid in 1991. In the same spirit, it should continue to encourage direct talks between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab countries — as is occurring even today in the United States — with a view to achieving mutual recognition and the ultimate objective of a lasting peace throughout the Middle East. We are confident that the talks taking place in Washington will culminate in the success to which we all aspire, and to which they seem to be leading. In another context, integration processes are indispensable for fair competition in a world of subregional blocks. In this regard, the countries of the Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR) are convinced that our integration process contributes to a true liberalization of trade. MERCOSUR constitutes an integrated, open process that has created economic zones both inside and outside the subregion. Thus, impetus has 6 been given to association with other States of the hemisphere, with other regional blocs and with countries outside the region. But above all, MERCOSUR has generated trade, both inside and outside the organization. MERCOSUR is today a demonstration of open regionalism, which affirms the commitments and, above all, the teachings of the World Trade Organization. There is no question that free trade has been and remains one of the cornerstones of world economic development, as was repeatedly recognized during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). For this very reason, we cannot endorse unilateral efforts to effect the extraterritorial application of domestic legislation and as a consequence of which, whether by virtue of their letter or their spirit, a country would be able to extend the applicability of its laws beyond its own national borders, undermining not only the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States but also freedom of trade, which is the very essence of the World Trade Organization, recently established by the international community. While our hopes for the establishment of representative democracy throughout our continent remain as strong as ever, we continue to oppose the unilateral application of economic, trade or financial measures against a State for political purposes. The usefulness of such measures for the rapid and peaceful transition of a country towards democracy has not yet been demonstrated. With regard to cooperation for development, we recall that the countries with greater capacities to contribute undertook to allocate at least 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product for that purpose. Yet there has been a significant downward trend in contributions stemming from that commitment in recent years, and this trend cannot be linked to the financial crisis the Organization is experiencing. These are resources intended to fight poverty and underdevelopment and to create more dignified living conditions for our peoples. Nor should we confine cooperation to a vertical, one-way process; rather, we must also view it in terms of South-South cooperation, availing ourselves of our mutual experience to create our own competitive advantages. A few days ago, Uruguay became one of the first signatories to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Together with other developments, such as the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, this Treaty constitutes a basic instrument for the reaffirmation of the principles of international peace and security. Still in the field of disarmament, we have repeatedly voiced our opposition to the transfer, stockpiling, export and production of anti-personnel landmines. Accordingly, we shall continue to support keenly all initiatives aimed at eliminating them, as well as at securing the immediate entry into force of the Protocol adopted in Vienna last May. Uruguayan contingents assigned to peacekeeping Missions in Angola, Mozambique and Western Sahara have been among the many victims of these weapons, and it is the moral obligation of humankind to eradicate them. Finally, we should like to close by referring to one of the clearest and most tangible manifestations of the phenomenon of globalization we have sought to describe: the production, trafficking and consumption of illegal drugs. This is one of the most tragic forms of international organized crime, and its growing seriousness is demonstrated by statistics from the most varied sources. Its transnational nature makes it essential that the principle of shared responsibility should be systematically applied — without exception or unilateralism — to the entire cycle of production, trafficking and consumption. This is a tightly wound chain whose links include all countries without exception. Please accept, Mr. President, our sincerest congratulations on your election to guide the work of the Assembly and the firmest commitment of the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to support you in your activities.