I should like, at the outset to
congratulate His Excellency Mr. Stoyan Ganev, Deputy Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, on his unanimous election to the presidency of
the General Assembly of the United Nations at its the forty-seventh session.
His election is recognition of his diplomatic skills and the respect for
international law in his country. We are confident that the international
community will benefit from his presidency.
I also take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to his
predecessor. His Excellency Ambassador Samir Shihabi of Saudi Arabia, who
diligently presided over the General Assembly at its forty-sixth session in an
exemplary manner. We thank him for his efforts.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
has been at the helm of our Organization for nearly a year now. We have
already appreciated his style of work and the vigorous responses to the
various crises that have beset the international community. We want to
reiterate our confidence in his work and our continuing support for his
leadership.
I welcome into our midst, as others before me have done, the 12 new
Members of the United Nations. Their admission draws the United Nations
closer to the realization of the principle of universality of membership.
This development is particularly welcome at this time, when a rejuvenated and
vigorous United Nations is closely involved in the resolution of many
conflicts and crises around the world. It makes the pronouncements and
actions of the world body that much more effective.
It has now become clear to all that the end of the cold war has not been
a panacea for the world's ills, especially the ills of third world countries.
In some areas, and in some respects, these problems have been compounded by
the upsurge in intense nationalism and new brands of religion. The end of the
cold war has not yet brought tangible results and change for the Palestinian
people in the Middle East, the black majority in South Africa, or peace to the
peoples of Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Western Sahara and many other areas of
conflict in the world. However, new and determined efforts are being made to
resolve some of these problems peacefully, and we hope that these efforts will
succeed.
The tenth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, held recently in Indonesia,
drew attention to the failure of all the multilateral talks aimed at narrowing
the gap between developed and third world countries. In many areas, this
economic gap has widened. The Summit confirmed the validity of the Movement
in the current international situation, but it urged its members both to join
hands in fighting the common economic and financial problems of the South and
to promote economic cooperation among members of the South themselves. The
fast-growing economies of South-East Asian countries have shown the capacity
for intra-regional cooperation among developing countries and what can be
achieved. In the place of cold-war issues, the Movement has put economic and
financial matters on its agenda, and we hope that these will be tackled very
forcefully over the next three years.
In our region of southern Africa, our economic problems have been
compounded by the very severe drought we are all facing. In the past, we used
to export large quantities of white maize, but this year we have had to import
13 million tons of grain alone. Although the States in the region are fully
cooperating in the areas of transport and energy supply, other areas of our
cooperation would be greatly increased were the evil apartheid system in South
Africa brought to an end and a non-racial and democratic system established in
that country.
The regime of President F. W. de Klerk which has been commented upon by
a number of speakers has put the brakes on the transition process that was
being discussed at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (COPESA). It
has also very effectively undermined the entire process by condoning and
abetting the escalating violence against innocent black people and
demonstrators.
Mr. de Klerk has lost credibility in the eyes of the international
community. He must take steps now to release all political prisoners; we are
told there are 140 prisoners still languishing in jail. He must abandon or
close down the single men's hostels, which are being used by armed gangs as
camps. He must forbid the carrying of any weapon for any purpose in public
places. He should disband all extraterritorial battalions, such as Koevoet
and Battalions 31 and 32; in fact, he should ban all private armies and
militia units. These are not drastic measures by any means. They are the
minimum steps that must be taken to level the playing field so that all South
African political parties and teams can play on it.
The current problems of prisoners, hostels, weapons and private militias
are a direct consequence of the evil system of apartheid itself, which the
international community has described as a crime against humanity. We must
stress that that system has not yet ended, although some bold steps have been
taken in the last two years towards removing it. But it is still there.
We commend the role the international community has played, and continues
to play, in South Africa in line with Security Council resolution 765 (1992)
of 16 July 1992. It is still our belief that to deal adequately with the
situation of violence in the country a substantial number of observers many
more than the current 50 or so - should be dispatched to the country so that
they cover all potential flash points. Only a credible and effective
international presence can prevent the violence and restore the confidence
among the parties in South Africa that is necessary for successful
negotiations.
It has become obvious that the international community has made the
greatest headway on the South African issue when it has acted in unison. We
need unity-in-action from the international community. The De Klerk
Government must come out unequivocally on the side of majority rule as
understood by all civilised nations, without any conditions or vetoes for
minorities. The regime's primary responsibility is to provide security and
safety for all South Africans, and therefore it needs to take decisive action
not only for the protection of all citizens of the country, as I indicated
earlier, but also to carry forward the current process of eliminating
apartheid through peaceful means.
Developments elsewhere in our region give much greater cause for hope,
but the peace processes in question need to be carefully nurtured if success
is to be guaranteed. In Angola adequate preparations appear to have been made
for the general elections that are to take place in the next few days. The
Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola gave a detailed account of the
arrangements that have been made for the elections in that country. The
Angolan people, he indicated, will be given an opportunity to elect a
government of their choice.
The greatest praise for this achievement must go to the Angolan people
themselves, who have shown great maturity and patriotism in the face of
difficulties and mutual suspicions nurtured by 16 years of war. Some praise
must, however, also go to the United Nations, which has steadfastly supported
the Angolan peace process, particularly through the deployment of the United
Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM II), a peace-keeping operation in
which my country, Zimbabwe, is also playing a modest part.
We are glad that the problems that had arisen with regard to the
registration of voters, particularly logistical problems of access by
voter-registration officials to various parts of the country, have now been
resolved and that incidents of violence in the electioneering process have not
been allowed to get out of hand. We also commend the pledge by the main
parties in the Angolan elections that they will respect the poll result and
that if they win they will endeavour to establish a government of national
unity and reconciliation. The concept of bringing all sections of society
into government is indeed an act of statesmanship that takes into account the
traditions of the African people.
With regard to Mozambique, we believe that a comprehensive cease-fire
will be signed on 1 October 1992. We hope that this solemn commitment will be
upheld and respected by all the signatories and, in fact, by all the
Mozambican people. After so many years of fighting, Mozambicans want peace,
tranquillity and progress, but to achieve peace a lot of work still remains to
be done. There is need for flexibility on both sides, and for active
participation by all States in the region, including the Republic of South
Africa, in the peace process.
Zimbabwe has done, and will continue to do, all in its power to help
maintain the momentum and keep the peace process in Mozambique moving
forward. As all delegates are aware, the Rome Declaration envisages an
eventual United Nations monitoring role in Mozambique's electoral process, and
we trust that all States will support such an undertaking by this world body.
The situation in Somalia, to which many speakers have referred, is a
cause of deep concern in my country; 2 million people may die and 5 million
need food aid. The extent of the suffering, which is now labelled the world's
worst human disaster, could have been greatly alleviated had the world body
acted earlier and with speed. However, we commend the decisive steps that
have now been taken by the Security Council, especially the decision to
dispatch 3,500 troops to protect food shipments and distribution. My country
is proud to be participating in this operation, which is aimed at averting a
famine of genocidal dimensions in Somalia.
We urge the various clan militias in the country not to disrupt the
United Nations effort, but to engage in negotiations aimed at reuniting and
bringing peace to their tortured people. The leaders of the three political
factions in Somalia must be condemned for intensifying civil strife in a
society that is already ravaged by so much famine and drought. They should
instead be unifying and reconciling their people, reconciling the nation, in
order to enable it to withstand the drought more effectively.
In West Africa the continued elusiveness of a solution to the Liberian
conflict is also a cause of grave concern. We commend the efforts of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Governments to bring peace
and democracy to Liberia. Fighting between rival factions in recent days may
embroil forces of the ECOWAS Cease-fire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) in more
fighting and make the whole situation intractable. We urge our Liberian
brothers to put the safety and future of their people and country before
personal gain and aggrandizement, and we urge our ECOWAS brothers also to
continue with their efforts in attempting to bring peace to Liberia.
The crisis in the Middle East has dragged on for a long time, dating from
the cold-war era. Our hopes were raised that a solution would be found in the
current round of peace talks that began with the Madrid Conference. We still
place our hopes in that process, and hope that the advent of a Labour
Government in Israel will result in a more imaginative and flexible attitude
that can lead to a solution adequately addressing the legitimate aspirations
of the Palestinian people. Clearly, the new Israeli Government must accept
the principle of the complete withdrawal of its troops of occupation from
Palestine and the assumption of full control by the Palestinians over their
own resources, including water resources, as fundamental to the resolution of
the Palestinian issue. Further, it is important for the United Nations to
assume a central role in the peace process, particularly as its resolutions
served as terms of reference for the Madrid Conference.
There are many other areas of crisis and conflict that require, and are
getting, the attention of this world body, such as Cyprus, Cambodia,
Afghanistan, Western Sahara and others. The United Nations must continue to
ensure that in Western Sahara, the referendum plan is carried out in a manner
that reflects the genuine aspirations of the Sahrawi people; that in Cambodia,
full and comprehensive implementation of the Paris Accords is achieved; that
in Cyprus, a solution that preserves the unity of the country and its
sovereignty and territorial integrity is found; and that in Afghanistan also,
the unity of the country is ensured and peace realized.
The most explosive areas in the whole world today, however, remain the
countries of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the former
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which have been the subject of much
comment by earlier speakers. In these areas, once the communist parties that
held power collapsed, the remaining, separate ethnic entities were engulfed in
intense local tribalism and in an upsurge of religious fundamentalism. Our
experiences in Africa reveal that social situations of tribalism and/or
religious fundamentalism cannot be resolved simply by calling an election, or
by using military force alone; what is often required is a deliberate act of
national reconciliation that establishes a government of national unity and
distributes power and influence to every segment of the society. This is a
political game in which there should be no losers: the purpose of an election
becomes that of establishing the relative strengths of the participating
parties and therefore the weight or seats they should have in a government of
national unity.
In the case of Yugoslavia, from the very beginning my delegation felt
that when the upsurge of tribal feeling hit that unhappy land, a conference of
national reconciliation should have been convened. If some tribes insisted on
getting out of the federal arrangement, they should have been required to sign
a treaty guaranteeing the rights of the minority tribes to power-sharing and
to enforcement of full human rights within their own territories,
because let us face it - the main problem in Yugoslavia is the patchwork of
tribal units that are spread throughout that land.
We ourselves have never believed that the European Economic Community's
policy of early recognition of Croatia and Slovenia on the one hand and the
severe punishment of Serbia and Montenegro on the other would solve the
problems of tribal and religious feelings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the
numbers in the ethnic mix are almost equal. We strongly condemn the obnoxious
policy of so-called ethnic cleansing by the competing tribes in Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
The expulsion or killing of any one person in the process of so-called
cleansing does not solve any problem; instead, it creates a psychological,
vicious circle of communal violence. However, when we discuss the question of
Yugoslavia in this world body soon, we would urge a word of caution: to seek
reconciliation and not to ridicule any of the warring tribes of former
Yugoslavia. The fact that persons drawn from different ethnic, racial,
religious, linguistic and cultural groups live together should be a point of
strength rather than weakness; in fact, former Yugoslavia used to pride itself
on that very fact. Here in the United States of America, the country draws
much strength from the cultural diversity of its people, who live together
happily under one political system. That is broadly what we should aim at in
the context of the Balkans.
The subject of restructuring the United Nations system has been on our
agenda for some time now. My delegation put some specific proposals before
the summit of world leaders held here last January. The thrust of our
contribution was the need to democratize the international system and the
empowerment of the voice of third world countries within that system.
We are pleased that the Secretary-General has followed up the work of
that summit with a comprehensive statement entitled "An Agenda for Peace"
(A/47/277). We agree with most of the well-thought-out conclusions and
suggestions in the report; in particular, we agree with the emphasis he puts
on democratic practices and the commitment to full human and political rights
within our societies. On the subject of tribalism and nationalism, which we
have been discussing, he says:
"if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there
would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and economic
well-being for all would become ever more difficult to achieve".
(A/47/277, para. 17)
We also endorse the recommendation that more should be done to assist the
countries that become victims of economic sanctions applied by this world body
against other States. A meaningful and fair programme and mode of
compensation for victim States would encourage them to apply United
Nations-sponsored sanctions more faithfully, which would result in greater
effectiveness of those sanctions.
It is also our view that the United Nations should have its own dedicated
and committed armed units on a permanent basis, so that in its enforcement
actions the world body acts as the world body, not as only some of its parts
or some of its Members. The Charter itself provides for the United Nations to
function in that fashion, and we believe that it is time the relevant
provisions in this regard were reactivated.
Given the centrality of the Security Council to the question of the
maintenance of international peace and security, any discussion of security
issues cannot be complete without a look at the procedures of that body
itself. We are aware of the circumstances in which the power of veto was
given to those who now possess it in the Council. The point at issue now is
whether arrangements that appeared fair or at least justifiable 47 years
ago are still viable today. We believe this is an issue which needs rational
discussion in which all States would participate equally and all views would
be given a fair hearing. Only such a fair exchange of views can result in the
peaceful new world order that we are all seeking.
Needless to say, conflicts are not only the result of injustice within
and among nations but also the result of poverty, want and despair. The past
decade has seen a massive deterioration in the standards of living of peoples
in the developing world. This poverty is traceable not only to the policies
of individual third world Governments but also to the capricious and
pernicious international environment in which they operate: not only have the
prices for raw materials - the mainstays of our economies - been seriously
depressed throughout the past decade, but we have also faced extremely high
interest rates and increased protectionism from the markets of developed
countries. Far from being recipients of capital, we have become net exporters
of hard currency, and today we jointly labour under a foreign debt of some
$1.3 trillion. Some of us have, in addition to all this, suffered natural
disasters such as the drought, to which I have referred, that is ravaging
southern Africa at the present time.
Poverty and want breed despair, and despair, of course, breeds conflict.
If the international community is to address peace and security issues
adequately, it needs to attend seriously to the causes of despair in the world
today. There can be no human right greater than the right to food, the right
to shelter and the right to life itself and, during life, the right to
literacy. The world body and its specialized agencies must address these
issues as a matter of urgency.
In this regard, we are pleased at the plethora of projects now under way
to make the United Nations focus on issues of economic development and social
and humanitarian issues, such as the Nordic project. We believe the time has
also come when a frank appraisal should be made of the global economy with a
view to eliminating some of the built-in obstacles to growth for developing
countries.
I must return again to the theme of the Movement of Non-Aligned
Countries, namely, how to close the widening economic gap between rich and
poor nations. My delegation supports the convening of an international
conference on social development, planned for 1994 or 1995. Such a gathering
would assist in defining clearly the basic needs of human beings on this Earth
in this nuclear age, needs which must be met in order for them to live a
decent, satisfying and enriched life - in answer to the question. What does
an ordinary human being need? and it would also map out a genuine path of
development for third world countries in the South. The conference could play
a very important part in showing the correct path to development. The paths
that have been chosen for development have led us in different directions, and
some of them have led us into culs-de-sac. We need to think deeper and to act
more decisively in order to chart the correct path. To that extent, we
strongly support the convening of the conference on social development.
That should be the essence of the new world order to which we should all
aspire. It should be an international order guided by the twin objectives of
universal peace and security, on the one hand, and an improved quality of life
for all the Earth's inhabitants, on the other. It must also be an order
characterized by justice and respect for international law. We third world
countries should join enthusiastically in the promotion of the current Decade
of International Law, because that is our only shield against the arbitrary
actions of some big Powers. Our sovereignty and our national
self-determination are deeply rooted in our political philosophies, of various
kinds, but they are also anchored in the practice of international law. We
should uphold that shield even more vigorously in the so-called new world
order that is emerging. We should also uphold the Charter of the United
Nations, which gives us some of the basic principles on which the
international system has operated for so many years, nearly half a century.
Today we stand at a crossroads. The collapse of the old order gives us
the rare opportunity to build something new in its place. Shall we use this
opportunity wisely, or not? History has taught us salutary lessons about the
price mankind has had to pay for opportunities that are missed. In our
deliberations in this forum and in others, we shall all help determine the
shape of this new order that is coming. Zimbabwe intends to participate, with
others, actively in that debate to ensure that the much-heralded new world
order will be a just, humane and enlightened one that will bring an
improvement to the quality of life of all of humanity and provide for the
basic needs of all human beings, and especially in our developing societies.
The global community has the means and the capacity to provide for those basic
needs.