France

Mr. President, I should like to say first how pleased France is to see you personally presiding over the work of the General Assembly. Beyond your personal merits, which I acknowledge with pleasure, your election underscores the important contribution to the activities of the Organization of Portugal, a member of the European Union with which France feels particularly close. The United Nations is 50 years old. As the Heads of State and Government of the European Union solemnly emphasized in Cannes last June, the collective work since the Second World War has been considerable. The European Council on that occasion paid tribute to the major contribution of the United Nations to this collective work and gave some examples: decolonization, the maintenance of international peace and security, disarmament, development, humanitarian aid and, of course, the protection of human rights. But the successes of the Organization do not belong solely to history. This year has shown the vitality of the United Nations. In Copenhagen, the social dimension of development, the struggle against exclusion and for productive employment, which are both major challenges for all our societies, are now within the domain of our Organization. In Beijing, the principle of strict equality between men and women and the right of women to decide freely about their lives in all matters have finally been endorsed once and for all as universal values. In New York, the United Nations has begun preparatory work towards the establishment of a world criminal court. This project signals decisive progress for international humanitarian law. In Vienna, at this very moment, a conference on the scourge of inhumane weapons is being held. France is working in particular to eradicate the scourge of the spread of anti-personnel mines. In 1993, it decided upon a unilateral moratorium on the export of these mines. Now the time has come to go one step farther. Accordingly, I wish to confirm that France has decided to adopt a unilateral moratorium on the production of all categories of anti-personnel mines. It is therefore 12 imposing upon itself a ban on the manufacture of such weapons. France also pledges from this point on to destroy gradually its stock of anti-personnel mines. I call on all Member States to join with us and do the same thing. This year has also been marked by the success of the New York Review and Extension Conference of the States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This success was a major step towards disarmament. France proposes that this coming year should be a time for further progress in this domain: disarmament should be our common goal and it should encompass all aspects of disarmament. France calls upon the States that have not yet adhered to this Treaty to do so without further delay. The struggle against the proliferation of nuclear weapons must be universal. I suggest that all the States which have already signed this Treaty multiply concerted efforts to persuade the States which have not yet signed to join them. In addition, it is important to follow through on the new objectives decided by the review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May. Among these, the most important is the conclusion, no later than 1996, of the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty now being negotiated in Geneva. The President of the French Republic, Mr. Jacques Chirac, most solemnly reaffirmed on 13 June 1995 France’s determination to achieve this goal and to ensure that the ban is total. France is pleased that other nuclear Powers have in turn made the same commitment. It calls on all nuclear Powers to ensure, together with all the Member States of the Organization, that this pledge is duly confirmed in the text of the future treaty and that the negotiation of the treaty is completed before the autumn of 1996. I take this opportunity to recall the reasons that led France to complete the programme of nuclear tests that was temporarily suspended in 1992. The final series of tests now under way has no other purpose than to enable us to sign the treaty banning nuclear tests definitively. There were some who imagined and others who wished to make believe that we might reconsider such a decision. This will not happen. Once again I repeat, this is a final test series, limited to what is strictly necessary and held under conditions that have been proved to be harmless. It will enable us to adhere as early as possible to the future treaty banning tests definitively. The disarmament effort must of course be directed towards reducing existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Substantial progress has been achieved over the past few years with the destruction of a significant number of warheads by the two main Powers. I would recall that France for its part, although it has never contributed to nuclear overarmament, reduced the nuclear warheads it had deployed by 15 per cent between 1991 and 1995. Disarmament, however, does not apply solely to nuclear weapons. With regard to chemical weapons, I call upon all the Member States to ratify, or for those which have not yet done so to adhere to, the 1992 Convention banning chemical weapons. I regret that France is the only permanent member of the Security Council that has ratified this Convention. I hope that the other permanent members will do so in the coming months. We must continue the effort to reduce conventional forces in Europe. France took its full part in the agreement on conventional force reductions in Europe. It proposes that the conference which will be held in May 1996 to examine the implementation of this agreement should focus on compliance by all States with a treaty that is the keystone of security in Europe. This conference should also be the occasion for further progress. There remains the highly sensitive issue of the Convention banning biological weapons. A serious verification system has to be set up. I hope that the working group responsible for this matter in Geneva quickly establishes such a system. My country cannot accept the argument put forward by some that the Organization has failed in its task. We reject the accusations of passivity and helplessness that are sometimes made against it. Nevertheless, we cannot hide the fact that the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary will not be as joyful and as optimistic as we would have liked. The image of the Organization in public opinion is confused, even negative at times. We should try together and with a clear head to identify the reasons for such a situation. I am convinced they have nothing to do with any disaffection with the Organization. Never have the aspirations of our peoples, especially the youth of the world, so matched the objectives of the Charter: peace and disarmament, environmental protection, solidarity with the very poor, aid to those who suffer, the promotion of democracy, of liberty and basic human rights, and the collective struggle against the major scourges of the end of the century, namely drugs, terrorism and AIDS. In the last few years, we have witnessed the emergence of a body of common values on a world scale. These are the values which the United Nations, like France, upholds; they are the values of peace. 13 In Europe we built with our neighbours a Community and then a European Union, and in doing so we turned a page of a history that had so often led us to confrontation with each other. Since 1945 Europe has known a period of unparalleled peace. The European Union is on the verge of being enlarged again. France warmly welcomes the forthcoming membership of its neighbours in Central, Eastern and Mediterranean Europe, and will do everything to make it a great success. In this way, the unity of our continent is gradually being organized. The extension of the boundaries of the European Union does not lead it to close in on itself. Quite the contrary, Europe is opening up to nearby neighbours from the South, as the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona will demonstrate. I should like to emphasize the fundamental importance of that Conference. Europe also wants to develop its relations with Asia; in this regard, the first Europe-Asia Summit, scheduled for March 1996, will be a clear illustration. Lastly, Europe is deepening its partnership with Russia as well as enhancing its close ties with the United States and other partners. I would like to insist on the fact that the European Union, under the impetus of the French presidency, has confirmed its privileged relationship with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the context of the Lomé Convention and its special place in North-South relations as the leading donor of development assistance. In all those areas, Europe has set the example. These values of peace are also at work in the Middle East. France welcomes the important results that have already been achieved under the peace process. I am thinking of the Declaration of Principles of 13 September 1993 and the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty of 26 October 1994. But, above all, I am pleased to see that the principles agreed upon in Oslo have at last borne fruit with the long- awaited initialling of the interim agreement this Sunday. With this, a major turning-point, manifested by the declaration of principles, has been given concrete form. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is now irreversible. I also hope that the talks between Israel and Syria will soon resume and that negotiations will start between Israel and Lebanon so that a just and lasting peace, in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978), be guaranteed throughout the region. As the French President, Mr. Jacques Chirac, stated at the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary at Geneva, the world needs the United Nations. And it knows it, as proved by the increasing number of tasks Member States have entrusted to the Organization. Therefore, today’s doubts have another origin. I see two major causes. First, the United Nations is not shown sufficient respect, probably because of a lack of political will and resources. Secondly, the Organization has yet to demonstrate its ability to reform itself. Let me speak of respect first. One will never be able lay sufficient stress on the devastating effect of the sight of the Blue Berets of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) held hostage last spring, in chains and humiliated in their dignity as men and soldiers. In Somalia, in Rwanda prior to Operation Turquoise, in the former Yugoslavia since the outbreak of the conflict, the soldiers of peace had already found themselves in situations that the United Nations accepted but that no Member State would ever have tolerated. It is not surprising that the image of the Organization has thereby suffered. I want to make myself clear. It is not a matter of questioning the enormous work that has been accomplished by the United Nations peace-keeping forces since the end of the cold war: Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador and Haiti owe to those forces progress that would have been impossible without the United Nations. In Somalia, the United Nations saved thousands of lives. Its intervention in the countries of the former Yugoslavia made it possible to prevent the war from spreading to Macedonia, to contain and dampen the conflict within central Bosnia and Croatia, and, above all, to ensure the survival of the populations in certain safe areas, in Sarajevo in particular, for three years. However, we have been helpless witnesses to unacceptable suffering, to shameful operations of so-called “ethnic cleansing” and to crimes against humanity, which the international community was unable to prevent and before which it remained passive. These tragic events have shown the dangers of mixing humanitarian and military missions and the risks incurred when the mission conferred by the United Nations is lacking in clarity. The Organization needs to make itself respected when it intervenes in a conflict. Last spring, France proposed to its partners that the time to react had come at last. It suggested a change in attitude and policy, with the formation of a powerfully armed Rapid Reaction Force. We have since begun, in liaison with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), decisive action to lift the siege of Sarajevo. This has 14 enabled the United Nations to recover the respect of all parties. This strengthening of the United Nations capacities for action has no other objective than to place force at the service of law. Only a political solution can truly settle the conflicts brought about by the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. That is why France, together with its partners in the European Union and within the Contact Group, has taken a clear position in favour of a settlement based on two main principles, namely, respect for international law and the support of the settlement by all the populations concerned. Respect for international law entails a rejection of any solution which, imposed by force, would mean breaking with the founding principles of our Organization. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a recognized State and a Member of the United Nations. Its territorial integrity and sovereignty must be preserved. There is nothing to discuss or negotiate on those two matters. Those who have chosen to break the law and who have committed the crimes of which we are all aware will be held responsible individually. The International Criminal Tribunal, whose creation was proposed by France in 1992, must fully exert its jurisdiction. It is also important that all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be able to assert their specific character through representative entities. Let each entity have direct management of its own affairs and even be able to maintain special relations with States whose populations share the same affinities. All this is legitimate so long as the management of common interests and the exercise of the functions of sovereignty are not brought into question. The agreement on the principles of a settlement proposed to the protagonists in this conflict by the Contact Group at Geneva on 8 September of this year and accepted by their representatives, meets these two criteria. This is why France has welcomed it, approves it and will support it. The agreement and subsequent actions represent an encouraging step, but they are only a first step. The extent of what remains to be done to end the tragedy of Bosnia clearly shows the major role that the United Nations will have to take. In that mission, it can rely on France’s unwavering support. It must also rely on the support of the international community. Peace will be the work of all. The decline in the respect shown the Organization is evident in another domain that also affects its survival, namely, its financing. It is not normal for the Secretary- General of the world’s largest Organization, faced with the threat of imminent bankruptcy, to have fewer avenues of recourse in dealing with his debtors than the smallest of our businesses. It is not acceptable for Member States — and I am not thinking here only of those that are experiencing real economic difficulties — to show such scant respect for the Organization by ignoring the legal obligations they have freely accepted. France would like to see the United Nations stronger and more respected. For this to occur, however, it is also essential that the Organization be reformed and adapted. The Secretary-General has spared no effort to open the way to reform. Under his aegis, significant progress has been made in the management of the Organization. All the debates in these past few years were undertaken at his initiative and have been based on his proposals in the Agenda for Peace and the Agenda for Development. France is awaiting with the greatest interest the Agenda for Democracy, which will complete this triptych in a field in which the United Nations is called on to take the leading role. The Organization has need, more than ever, of its Secretary-General in order to adapt to the demands of the twenty-first century. However, it also requires the political will of its Member States, and this is not sufficiently in evidence. At the opening of this fiftieth session, my wish is a simple one. Let us concentrate on the projects that have already been begun so that they can be completed soon, within the coming year. France will contribute to this, and I should like in this respect to submit a few proposals. One of our main objectives will be to reach an agreement on enlarging the Security Council. Enlargement will be successful only if the Council continues in a lasting way to be representative of the community of nations through a reasonable increase in the number of its members. I should like to reaffirm this today: the Security Council will have to welcome Germany and Japan as permanent members, as well as some major States of the developing world. It would also be desirable, naturally, for the Council simultaneously to be opened to some new non-permanent members. 15 The negotiation on the enlargement of the Security Council now can and should be concluded quickly. Let us wait no longer. It is equally imperative for the discussion on United Nations financing to produce results in the next few months. But we must be honest with ourselves. This negotiation depends in part on the response to the United States’ request for a reduction in its assessed contribution to the budget for peace-keeping operations. I shall not try to disguise France’s genuine doubts as to the legitimacy of this request. None the less, for the higher interests of the Organization, my country is ready to examine this question without any a priori conclusions. It does, however, set certain imperative conditions. The first condition is that any new scale must respect fully the real capacity of Member States to pay. On this point I should like once again to pay tribute to your country, Mr. President. Portugal decided this year, of its own accord, to increase its contribution to the budget for peace-keeping operations. The second condition is that the agreement must make it possible for the Organization to start off again on sound bases. All existing arrears will therefore have to be paid up. The third condition is that automatic sanctions should be applied to those who do not pay appropriately in order to prevent a recurrence of the current crisis. This is the modest price of enabling the United Nations to devote itself less nervously to its two principal missions: peace-keeping and development. Peace-keeping is the domain of the Security Council, the only body empowered to decide on the use of force and to determine the principles and mandate of operations carried out in the interest of international peace and security. We have to learn the lessons of the experiences of recent years. Aside from traditional peace-keeping, the United Nations may find itself obliged, in accordance with the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council, to resort to force, within the limitations of its means, in order to preserve whatever can be preserved. United Nations military action is often the sole recourse available to the international community. It is therefore essential to increase the efficiency of the United Nations in the service of peace. Among the most pressing matters, I wish to underline the need to set up capacities for rapid intervention, in the framework of the vital process begun two years ago concerning stand-by forces. I wish also to mention the need to improve the command of operations and the interest in a still greater use of preventive diplomacy. I would like to say a few words about a situation that is of grave concern to France and that calls specifically for urgent action in preventive diplomacy on a large scale. I am referring to the situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Since the assassination of Burundi’s President, Mr. Ndadaye, and the unprecedented tragedy that struck Rwanda, this entire region has been deeply destabilized. More than 2 million Rwandans and Burundis are living outside their country in terrible conditions, with the difficulties that all this entails for the host countries. The absence of lasting political solutions, the climate of insecurity and fear that is kept alive by all the extremists, the suspicion reigning on all sides, the risk of new tragedies — all this compels us to address together and in depth the fundamental problems in this area, taking into account their extreme complexity and the trauma caused by the genocide that has plunged Rwanda into mourning. France remains convinced that only a comprehensive regional approach that is political in character will make it possible to do this. The principle of a conference on peace, stability and security in the Great Lakes region is now accepted, and we welcome the recent appointment of a Special Representative by the Secretary-General. But time is of the essence. This conference must be carefully prepared, with the active participation of the States most directly involved and interested in its success, and it must lead to the establishment of a stability pact for the African Great Lakes region. There are three elements that I believe to be essential in this respect: first, the adoption of principles for the return of the refugees and for national reconciliation, along with a commitment by States not to tolerate any activity hostile to their neighbours on their territory; secondly, the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements among the States concerned to enshrine these principles and commitments and to give them substance; and, finally, the organization of a follow- up mechanism under the aegis of the Security Council. France holds the conviction that development assistance is the second, or perhaps the first, raison d’être of the United Nations. Here, too, the balance sheet invites reflection. How can we not have questions about the 16 feebleness of results, the persistence of extreme poverty, or at times even famine, these crises that erase all prospects of development and bring indescribable suffering to populations? How can we not have questions about the reduced contributions of the world’s richest countries? These failures have gone onto the record. Now we must act, reform and take the best advantage of the experience we have acquired. The institutions of the United Nations and their network of representatives in the field are strong points. The development agencies have to refocus their activity specifically on their objectives. They have to set real priorities aimed at addressing real needs — in other words, first and foremost the needs of the least developed countries. But it would be shocking if, as I sometimes predict will happen, reform were boosted for the sole purpose of reducing still further the contribution of the richest States in the struggle against human poverty. France, together with its partners in the European Union, hopes to bring about, through An Agenda for Development a mobilization for development on new foundations. The situation is too disturbing to set the interests of the States of the North and South in opposition to each other. We are all bound by a higher duty: the global struggle against poverty. If, before this session comes to a close, we are able to enlarge the Security Council, to place United Nations financing on solid bases, to give the Organization the means to intervene rapidly and effectively to maintain peace and, finally, to modernize the modalities and institutions for development assistance, we will truly have celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, above and beyond all the speech-making, in a fitting manner: by our actions. Allow me finally to mention a project that is particularly dear to me: to re-establish, on the occasion of this anniversary, the universality of our Organization, which is reflected in the diversity of cultures and languages manifested here. Linguistic pluralism is essential. It reflects the right of each Member State to understand the others, but also its duty to make itself understood. A draft resolution on this subject will be submitted to the Assembly; it will deal with the use of languages in the Assembly’s deliberations and in the Secretariat, and I hope it will enshrine the need to retain sufficient resources to ensure the provisions of translation and interpretation services. I am convinced that we will reach a consensus in this regard. Our Organization has deliberately taken its actions for the long term. Recent events may obscure achievements that are nevertheless solid, the results of collective, patient, courageous work. But the gains are there. It is up to each of us to make them known and consolidate them so that the United Nations may continue to fulfil the indispensable role entrusted to it 50 years ago.