I am honoured to participate in this historic session on behalf of His Excellency Dr. Charles Ghankay Taylor, President of the Republic of Liberia, and to share with the Assembly his contribution to this debate. I am pleased to congratulate the President on his on your election as President of the fifty-sixth General Assembly. We wish to assure His Excellency of the full cooperation of the Liberian delegation. May I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the outgoing President, Mr. Harri Holkeri of Finland, for the very able manner in which he conducted the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly. By the same token, I would like to congratulate our distinguished Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, on his re-election as Secretary-General and for the distinguished recognition he received in being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which, without a doubt, is a result of his vision, commitment and the efficient manner in which he has led and continues to lead our organization. On 11 September 2001, not very far from this place, which is dedicated to the maintenance of international peace and security, the world was confronted with a kind of terrorism that now renders all of us vulnerable. This terrorism is not confined to any one group of people, nor is it confined to any one geographical location, or to any particular ethnic or religious group. Because of its transnational nature, the world must come together and, in a coordinated and collective manner, construct new models in answer to this scourge. We must act without delay, and without unnecessary debate. We must act with determination and urgency. 25 The problem of terrorism today requires that our Organization, the United Nations, should take the lead in coordinating and consolidating international efforts to tackle the new challenges that it raises. The United Nations should serve as a catalyst for these efforts, and not another bureaucratic web of inaction and prolonged debate. The United Nations — the institution that humanity has charged with the responsibility for global peace and security — is today the subject of terrorist threats. We must match our words with deeds; we must respond to this scourge. My Government reiterates its condemnation, in the strongest terms, of the barbaric and heinous acts of terrorism perpetrated against the United States, leading to unimaginable and enormous loss of lives and massive destruction in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. My Government has made concrete offers to the United States Government and the international coalition, and has taken strong measures in keeping with Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). I wish now to proceed to issue of reform of the United Nations. I believe, like the rest of you, that reform implies change towards a more positive condition. And I presume that when we speak of the United Nations, we speak of nations that have come together with a common interest to achieve a common objective. In essence, when we speak of reform, we must accept that the conditions under which our nations have come together — with a common interest to achieve a common objective — are no longer palatable and require change. The questions that many of us continue to debate regard what changes we want, and how to achieve those changes. However, I must interject a fundamental question as to whether the conditions, practices and traditions exist for a positive change, assuming we mean positive for the collective good. In bringing about any positive change for the collective good, a level playing field must exist, in which the interest of the whole will freely manifest itself in the change. A level playing field should show the following characteristics: transparency; freedom; fairness; and democratic practices. In terms of transparency, we must assume a condition in which the operation of and decision- making process within the United Nations and its specialized agencies are open. The Security Council should not deliberate in secrecy, as was the case during the pre-World War II years, in which secret diplomacy and alliance formations characterized the period. In terms of freedom, we must assume that Members of the United Nations can take decisions in the absence of threats, coercion, fear and retribution. In terms of fairness, we must assume that decisions cannot be taken in contradiction to universal moral imperatives, or to the detriment of the statehood of a Member. Sanctions with adverse socio-economic and humanitarian consequences should not constitute political tools available to a few Members. In terms of democratic practices, we must assume that decision-making will be reflective of the will of the majority and not of a few; that all Members will have an equal say and equal participation. Unfortunately, the contrary of these preconditions constitutes the status quo today with regard to the functioning of the United Nations. How can we assume the possibility of reform in the absence of a level playing field? Reform can be meaningful only in the context of the alteration of the spirit of the Charter. That, as I have suggested, would assume the presence of a level playing field. However, we must all admit that the concept of reform has gained currency only because of an attempt to admit emerging Powers into the elite group of permanent members of the Security Council. Such an attempt has provoked an outcry against the privilege of the few, and the challenge is how to admit these emerging Powers without disrupting the existing allocation of privilege. Privilege is never surrendered. It is shared only when the political structures compel inclusion. Reform will not occur within the United Nations until structural changes take place in the distribution of power and more non-traditional Powers emerge. It would therefore be an exercise in futility to expect concrete reforms in the United Nations without structural changes. And what we assume to be reform is essentially an adjustment occasioned by structural pressures. This adjustment would be limited to accommodating the newly emerging Powers, while appeasing the less powerful States through participation without power. The conferral of the right 26 of veto will mark this distinction. A permanent seat will no longer be synonymous with the right of veto. For the less powerful, the struggle will not be about power, but participation by affiliation, a sort of status club. Prestige is a preoccupation of the national character, which, despite its superficiality, will be pursued by States seeking to distinguish themselves from the crowd. Hence, the focus of the less powerful will be to join the club, and not the pursuit of the more important goal of integration, which is the only answer for the conversion of the less powerful into emerging Powers that would compel adjustment through structural pressures. Debate is not the mechanism of change. Individual less powerful States can hope to emerge as powerful States only through a process of integration within regional groupings where power in its entire composite is integrated into a common power capability. This would require integration of economic, military, technological, human, political and social resources into an integrated regional capacity. Only when this objective is achieved will the structure of the international political system yield to adjustment. Africa cannot, with all of its potential, continue to stand by and accept being condemned to perpetually occupy the position of the least developed continent. The African culture, heritage and value systems stand the risk of being lost in the sea of normative ethics based on Western values. Africa should not miss the opportunity of the new African Union to achieve meaningful integration and cooperation within the context of building a powerful African capability that will allow Africans a say in our common world. This will require a new pragmatism, commitment, vision, cooperation and sacrifice on the part of African leaders. The United Nations can work for Africa; we should learn from the successes of the power brokers who have made the United Nations an important instrument of their foreign policy. Liberia is a small country in West Africa that suffered seven years of civil war from 1990 to 1997. During the years of the civil war most institutions were destroyed, and a major brain drain resulted, as many Liberian professionals travelled abroad to better conditions. The war also resulted in the destruction of basic infrastructure, including power-generating plants, water plants, schools, hospitals, airports, bridges and private property. Over 666,000 Liberians ended up as refugees and over a million as internally displaced persons. More alarming was the failure of the international community to assist in the reintegration of over 60,000 former combatants who remained unemployed and idle. In 1997 a constitutionally elected Government was inaugurated facing the challenges of restoring a nation that had been destroyed by war. Four years later, the infant Government still faces an unsympathetic international community; it has received no official development assistance, and donor assistance for United Nations agencies and the non-governmental organizations operating in Liberia has declined over the past four years. The current unemployment rate is 85 per cent, while 80 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, the illiteracy rate is estimated at 80 per cent. Half of all school-age children do not attend school. Infant mortality stands at 134 out of 1,000 live births. Disability prevalence in the population is 16.4 per cent, of which 12.7 per cent is war-related. The World Health Organization rate for a post-war country is between 7 per cent and 10 per cent. The prevailing causes of disabilities are alarming, with 91.5 per cent acquired due to trauma and diseases. About 21 per cent of urban dwellers and 80 per cent of rural dwellers have no access to safe drinking water. Access to adequate sanitation is unavailable to approximately 70 per cent of the population. An estimated 8 per cent of the population is reportedly infected with HIV. Since 1999, dissidents have waged war in Lofa County against the constitutionally elected Government in Liberia, further exacerbating the already vulnerable humanitarian situation in the country. Death, destruction, displacement of populations and an increase in Liberian refugees have contributed to what the United Nations agencies call a humanitarian crisis in Liberia. The Liberian Government’s capacity to defend its territorial integrity has been impaired by a United Nations arms embargo, despite the right to self- defence, as expressed in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The Security Council has taken no measures to prevent the ongoing killing of innocent Liberians, especially women and children, who are the targets of atrocities committed in Lofa county by armed dissidents. 27 This country, a victim of war, poverty and disease, is today also the victim of a regime of punitive sanctions imposed by the Security Council in its resolution 1343 (2001). The representative of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs told the Security Council on 5 November 2001 that the humanitarian situation in Liberia today is “abysmal”. (S/PV.4405, p. 32) Since the imposition of sanctions by the Security Council, and despite the claim by the Council that the sanctions would not have any adverse effects on ordinary people, socio-economic indicators show that the living conditions of the Liberian people have declined dramatically. Available statistics show a direct correlation between the imposition of sanctions and the decline in the living standards of the Liberian people. The Security Council has imposed a global travel ban on more than 100 Liberians, without any rationalization. My Government has requested the Security Council to make known its criteria for the inclusion of persons subject to the travel ban. This minimal element of transparency and justice has been denied the Liberian Government. Among those subjected to the travel ban are the sick, invalids, businessmen, wives and ex-wives. What a frightening, alarming and dangerous precedent the Security Council has set. Liberia speaks not for itself, as it has already been victimized, but for the rest of you here, who may find similar treatment meted out against yourselves tomorrow. I await impatiently for a tomorrow when there will be redress from the injustice my country suffers, when all of you here will no longer be obliged to enforce unjust sanctions. Today, I am impatient to hear the General Assembly voice its opposition to the suffering imposed upon Liberian children, women and elderly persons. I impatiently wait for each and every member of the Security Council to respect the human rights of my people. I am impatient for the day when the United Nations will no longer be an instrument that is used to cause the suffering of innocent people. The Government of Liberia calls upon the Security Council to lift all sanctions imposed upon it and to bring to an end the suffering of the Liberian people. At the twenty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly, in 1971, a major decision was taken that to date has had far reaching implications. On 25 October of that year, after two decades of debate, by virtue of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI) adopted by a vote of 76 in favour, 36 against and 17 abstentions) the Republic of China was expelled from the world body. By that decision, a founding Member and its population — at that time of 14 million people — were effectively prevented from associating with the rest of the world. Nothing in the Charter justified such a decision, yet a precedent was set that is still unsurpassed. Nevertheless, it is the conviction of the Liberian Government that the now 23 million peace-loving people of the Republic of China should be allowed representation and participation in our world body. It is also the hope of the Liberian people that the great Chinese people will one day be peacefully reunited under the principles of democracy and human rights. In conclusion, permit me to allay the anxieties of all those who are preoccupied with the existing situation between the members of the Mano River Union. The leaders of the three Mano River Union States have resolved to put all of their differences aside and not to return to the destructive process of apportioning blame. We are a single people bound by blood, culture and language. We are bound by a common destiny that links us inextricably to one another and is capable of withstanding ephemeral differences. I wholly agree with President Conté of Guinea when he described our quarrel as a family matter. Our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers have commenced the process of reconciliation and confidence-building in Freetown, Conakry and Monrovia. So far, a number of significant decisions have been taken at the level of ministers for foreign affairs and the Joint Security Committee. We ask for the Assembly’s support in that process. I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the true fraternal solidarity and support of the Economic Community of West African States, which has stood the test of all of our challenges and difficulties and remains focused on the objective of peace. We too will remain focused on the objective of peace.