Jordan

I should like at the outset to extend to you, Mr. President, my sincere congratulations on your well-deserved election. I should like to wish you and the other members of the General Committee success in the discharge of your important duties. I had a chance to congratulate the President of the Assembly at its last session when I saw him in Amman, and I should now like to reiterate my gratitude for his competent presidency. The cold war may be over, but its death-knell reverberates around the globe. The comforting ideological certainties of super-Power confrontation are long gone. What have we to replace them? The new world order, with its promise of peace through collective security, has come upon a baptism of fire. And still it would appear that no common frame of reference, no new consensus, no global ethic, has emerged. As we enter the new millennium, we see the human spirit under siege as never before. Across the world, the voices of millions cry out in desperation for relief, for guidance. If we, the peoples of the United Nations, are to be true to our humanity, we must reappraise this situation that is of our own making. We must learn its lessons, no matter how hard, and we must apply them. It is our task today, and in the days to come, to fashion principles and practices for a truly new world order. In all fields of human endeavour, we need a new ethic for a new era. The balance of world power politics has given way. Ethnic nationalism has re-emerged, a phenomenon in which the unifying bond of common citizenship is replaced by racial or religious exclusivity. As a consequence, we face a series of apparently endless wars of attrition, fought to secure the domination of one ethnic nationalism over another. This trend must be reversed if our world is to be made safe from the spreading contagion of conflict. Many over the years have thought it impossible, but the Middle East is bucking this alarming trend. The signing on 13 September of the Palestinian-Israeli declaration of principles represents a significant step towards the achievement of a negotiated settlement in our troubled region. On the Jordanian-Israeli track, a common agenda, which has been carefully worked out over the last year and a half, has now been adopted. We trust that this will signify the commencement of serious and substantive negotiations on the various elements of that agenda, with the aim of achieving just and mutually satisfactory solutions. These developments are a triumph not only for the politics of consensus, but also for the international morality which the United Nations advocates and the legality it upholds. Over the years the Assembly has passed resolution after resolution calling for a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestine question that lies at its core. Finally, the main actors are playing the leading part in shaping their own destinies. My country has always sought to bring this prolonged and bitter conflict to an end, and in our search for solutions we have constantly aimed to reconcile peace and justice. Jordan has advocated a negotiated settlement based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) longer than any other party. Under the new arrangements, all parties to the conflict are committed to the implementation of those resolutions, affirming a cardinal principle of international law: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. There is an equally important principle to bear in mind, however. Peace cannot be piecemeal. It must be comprehensive if it is to be viable. As foreseen in the Madrid framework for the peace talks, some issues cannot be addressed by any two parties to the exclusion of others. The questions of regional security, water and above all the refugees cannot be resolved without direct reference to the neighbouring States. The status of Jerusalem has to be determined in a similar way. The legitimate rights which the three great monotheistic faiths share in the Holy City must be guaranteed and claims of political and administrative sovereignty accommodated to the satisfaction of all. In view of Jordan’s long association with the Palestinian question, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)-Israeli agreement will have major implications for our legitimate interests. At a time when new entities are being formed, an orderly transfer of power and authority is vital. Only this can safeguard the rights of existing States and those of individuals. There are questions to address about State property, archives, debts, treaties, nationality, salaries, pensions - the list is long, but not exhaustive. Jordan will seek modalities for their resolution with the relevant parties through our agenda. The refugee question is of paramount importance. It should not, and must not, be forgotten that the individuals affected have under international law a right of return and compensation, and their host countries are likewise entitled to compensation. Jordan has shouldered an enormous human load as a result of the conflict. Three waves of involuntary migrants - the refugees of 1948, the evacuees of 1967 and the returnees of 1991 - have sought shelter and succor in Jordan. Our treatment of these and other displaced persons has been exemplary. We have provided them with education and health services, with jobs and welfare. Citizens of Jordan, whether of Palestinian or Jordanian origin, enjoy civil and human rights equally and participate as equals in our democratization process. Jordan seeks an equitable, sustainable international approach to the treatment of our demographic burden, for it would be unconscionable to penalize host countries for their humanitarian policies. Another crucial issue is water. Our agenda strikes a delicate balance between the need for optimal utilization of scarce resources, on the one hand, and the equally imperative need to define the rights and duties of riparian States, on the other. We also look forward to definitive delineation of our borders with Israel, thereby giving concrete expression to the right of every nation to live in secure and internationally recognized boundaries. When the euphoria has subsided, these serious and complex questions will remain. The PLO-Israel accord, historic as it is, represents a first step towards Palestinian final status, which in turn will allow the Palestinians to take part in comprehensive regional security and cooperation arrangements. For the Middle East cannot be reduced to a single issue. It more closely resembles a tapestry woven of numerous intertwining threads. One of these wider regional issues - the suffering of the Iraqi people - demands urgently to be addressed. A succession of independent reports has brought to light the special impact of continued sanctions upon the most vulnerable segments of Iraqi society - in particular, the children. The sanctions regime that daily takes its toll on the people of Iraq also has adverse consequences for neighbouring States, including Jordan and Turkey. Issues such as this must be resolved if the Middle East is to seize its chance for lasting peace. A cooperative security system will help to protect the security of the States and peoples of the region. We can only avert the kind of destabilizing conflict that followed the end of the cold war in Eurasia by Forty-eighth session - 5 October l993 3 making arrangements to ensure our common future, underpinned by the full support of the international community. Despite these outstanding questions, I have no doubt that the extraordinary achievements of the autumn of 1993 will be seen in years to come as the start of a fresh course in the settlement of regional conflicts. The politics of dialogue and reconciliation have been our regional and domestic priorities, for they are essential to the democratic process. We seek to extend the principles of consensus and collective security to the Middle East to create a new regional order, an order which recognizes the right of each individual to lead a life free from fear, want and despair, an order which will provide justice to all peoples and security to all States, an order in which the United Nations and its agencies can play a positive role not only in humanitarian intervention or the protection of human rights, but in active peace-keeping and peacemaking. Jordan applauds Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali for his valiant efforts to overhaul the United Nations structure and personnel, injecting a fresh sense of purpose commensurate with the new challenges. It is in the interests of all Members of this body to see international law respected and upheld. We must all assist the Secretary- General in determining the criteria for United Nations intervention, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Angola, Cambodia or anywhere else. The terms of reference embodied in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter must be clearly defined, with checks and balances approved to avoid the erosion of the independence and territorial sovereignty of Member States. There is also an urgent need for well-trained international peace-keeping forces, which could be established under a reconstituted Military Staff Committee. The modus operandi for all United Nations action, irrespective of the issue at hand, must be the supremacy of the rule of law and the uniformity of its application. Double standards should not and must not be permitted, lest abuse of the law become the accepted norm. A wider issue concerning this Organization is that of Security Council reform. Jordan adds its voice to the host of countries that have called for a reassessment of the structure of the Security Council. Clearly, conditions in the world have changed dramatically since the formation of the Council, and we believe that these should be reflected in its composition. Jordan also lends its support to the Secretary- General’s proposals for post-conflict peace-building outlined in his "An Agenda for Peace". For in every part of the world peace will remain illusory unless it touches the daily lives of ordinary people. Peace will not take root except in an environment conducive to regional cooperation and mutual security and committed to the welfare of individual human beings. The development of economic infrastructure and provisions for investment in public services are as crucial as the questions of territorial sovereignty, national identity and security. It is for this reason that Jordan welcomes the recently convened conference to support Middle East peace as both timely and pragmatic. The peace dividend in my region, as elsewhere, must put an end to the politics of deprivation, fear and despair, the breeding ground for political extremism and rejection. The disparities and distortions created by half a century of conflict in the Middle East have given rise to such phenomena. That is undeniable. However, there is considerable alarm in the Muslim world at suggestions that Islam may replace communism as a global threat. These suggestions are informed by a skewed perception of Islam as a monolithic creed of violence, intolerance and oppression. Islam is not the new enemy. Extremism does exist within the Muslim world, much as it exists in the Christian world, the Jewish world, the Hindu world and the secular world. But to employ reductive stereotypes which demonize one fifth of the world’s population must ultimately be self- defeating. It can only result in the breed of senseless violence that has brought untold suffering and loss of life to Bosnia. Rather than seeking an enemy at the gates, let us each in our own communities look inwards and address the disparities and the despair that are the true causes of extremism and conflict. Let us join together to do battle with the real enemy. That enemy is a new world of "each for himself". That is what we must combat, with all the resources at our disposal. For the politics and economics of exclusivity are the bane of both pragmatism and idealism. Is the triple pillar of democracy, human rights and the free market the ceiling of our ambition? Democracy and free market economics are exceptionally successful systems with noble objectives. But they are not ends in themselves. The end for which we all strive is greater peace and greater justice for individual human beings across the world. How is this to be achieved? One of our strongest defences against a new world of "each for himself" would be a new global business ethic, applying not only among the developed nations, but also 4 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session between those nations and the developing countries. Such an ethic might prescribe a relationship of partnership which would in turn encourage greater self-reliance. Such an ethic would be wholly reconcilable with human rights, with pluralism, with care for the environment and with basic religious values. I would like to suggest that the key to a new ethic in all of these areas is our mutual interdependence. Whatever the context, injustice is perceived and conflict results when the gap between "self" and "other" seems larger than the common ground. This fundamental split between "me" and "you", between "us" and "them", is at the root of all oppositions, all polarities, all conflicts. Recognition of our mutual interdependence requires us to acknowledge the uniqueness of each individual and each culture - even into the broader environment - and to learn to live with the differences as with the commonalities. It requires that we strive for unity, but never seek to eradicate or compromise diversity. It requires a new thinking based on tolerance and compassion - a humane approach and respect for the voices of others. It requires, in short, that we be true to the ideals that fired the founders of this Organization when they wrote the words: "We the peoples of the United Nations". Herein lies the nexus between peacemaking, human rights, pluralism, cultural heritage and business ethics. Here lies the key to a new world of "all for each other", not "each for himself". The Middle East is showing the way. Its conflict, once held to be the most intractable on Earth, is now on the path to reconciliation and healing. As we enter a new millennium, a new era, let the world take heart from our example. Let us emerge together from the past and together let us build our brave new world.