Mexico

Let me first of all congratulate the President on his well- deserved election. It is a source of satisfaction to us that the President of his country, Ukraine, Mr. Leonid Kuchma, is on this very day starting a state visit to Mexico. To the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, we extend our sincere gratitude for the extremely dynamic way in which he is discharging his important responsibilities, and particularly for his significant contribution to the process of reform of the Organization. The work of this session of the General Assembly will cover the main items on the international agenda. Allow me to begin this statement by referring to those which are of particular significance to my country. In relation to the topic of disarmament, significant steps have recently been taken. Some prominent ones have been the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty, the approval of a Convention prohibiting 22 anti-personnel mines, and the forthcoming conclusion of an inter-American convention against the illicit traffic in arms, munitions and explosives. Also prominent at the regional level are the efforts the Rio Group has decided to undertake towards beginning consultations with a view to establishing criteria for self- regulation in the purchase and transfer of certain types of sophisticated conventional weapons. Latin America is one of the regions with the lowest military expenditures in the world, and there will be no grounds for asserting that an arms race exists among our countries. There is, nonetheless, agreement to prevent this from happening, and, accordingly, we hope that the meeting to be convened in Cancun next January by the Rio Group itself, with the participation of all its member States, will attain its objectives. Despite all these advances, we reiterate our concern at the lack of tangible nuclear disarmament measures, and we stress that the issue continues to be the responsibility of the international community as a whole, and not the exclusive province of the nuclear Powers. Accordingly, we regret that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996, which called attention to the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons and the obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament measures, has not been taken into account by the main nuclear-weapon States. It is appropriate to recall that when the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was indefinitely extended, a series of commitments was drawn up with a view to making progress towards nuclear disarmament, but so far not even the most minimal progress has been made. In an effort to break the impasse, Mexico, along with other countries, submitted to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva a programme of action, in which we called for the consideration and analysis of certain concrete disarmament measures with all the seriousness they deserve. To the same end, we support increasing the number of nuclear-weapon-free zones, along the lines of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America — the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Mexico will continue to support the Brazilian initiative to consolidate the southern hemisphere as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. With reference to the Convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines, it should be pointed out that the recent approval of that instrument in Oslo was the culmination of negotiations which had been conducted for one year within the framework of what is called the Ottawa process, as a result of an initiative by the Core Group formed by Mexico, Canada and other countries in October 1996. The Government of Mexico considers that the use of this category of weapons constitutes a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, and that the only viable solution to the problems it poses is the total abolition of anti-personnel landmines and the destruction of those currently stockpiled. Mexico welcomes the result achieved, with the justified hope that the countries which still remain outside the process will join in it. Let us not continue to regard peace as an unattainable objective or a utopian dream. Peace is not only the absence of war, but a way of life which establishes as the norm cooperation among free and equal nations to overcome the problems that plague human beings in all corners of the world. Peace is and must be possible, because it is essential to us. Mexico views drug trafficking as a serious threat to its national security and to the health of humankind. We maintain that this phenomenon promotes violence, corruption and other unlawful activities, such as illegal arms-trafficking, money-laundering and the diversion of chemical precursors. Among the possibilities offered by international cooperation in this sphere, Mexico has been extremely active in signing bilateral agreements to combat drug trafficking and in participating in forums dealing with the subject, such as the Inter-American Commission for Drug Abuse and the Rio Group. To this must be added the important process initiated by Mexico for the purpose of holding, in June next year, a special session of the General Assembly devoted to the consideration of the world situation with regard to the illicit drug problem, so that concrete measures against drug-trafficking and its associated crimes can be agreed upon. We invite all the Member States of the United Nations to participate actively at the highest level in that special session. Mexico rejects repressive police measures to prevent and control migratory flows, convinced as we are that the use of such methods, far from resolving problems, clouds relations between frontier communities and many times leads to the abuse and mistreatment of migrants by the authorities responsible for applying migration policy. As part of an effort to seek multilateral solutions to this problem within the framework of the fifty-third session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Mexican delegation submitted a draft resolution on migrants and human rights, which was adopted by 23 consensus, both in the Commission and in the Economic and Social Council. On the basis of the Mexican initiative, the Commission on Human Rights decided to establish a group of experts to formulate recommendations on strengthening the promotion, protection and exercise of these rights. We have a well-founded hope that it will be possible to secure the establishment of a minimum standard of conduct for countries in relation to migrants, regardless of their legal status. Recently, in the states of Texas and Virginia of the United States of America, two Mexican citizens were executed after all the means of recourse that could be used to obtain the commutation of their death sentences had been exhausted. In neither of the two cases was the person concerned able to contact the consulate of his country at the time he was arrested. This was a flagrant violation of article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This irregularity probably cost them their lives. There are 35 more Mexicans who have been sentenced to death in the United States, and a number of them did not have access to the consular protection to which they were entitled. The state of Texas went so far as to justify the omission by saying that it was not a party to the Convention in question. In the case of Virginia the State Department of the United States offered “profuse apologies” to the Government of Mexico after the Mexican national had been executed. Mexico wishes to denounce, in this highest forum of mankind, this appalling state of affairs. We shall be seeking an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the legality of applying the death penalty when an international convention that affects due process has not been complied with. In our view, this violates the spirit and letter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the juridical importance of which has been recognized by the Court to which I have referred. We are convinced that at this session of the General Assembly — imbued with new leadership and having placed on its agenda a number of reports containing specific proposals for progress in the reform process, including the one submitted by the Secretary-General himself on 16 July this year — we are at the threshold of a new phase in the Organization's development. With the same resolve with which it has invariably welcomed any effort to raise international affairs to the sphere of law, Mexico, as a founding Member of the Organization, reiterates its full readiness to contribute to the efforts we shall have to make to face this challenge. For a number of years, when the issue of reform was discussed we were content to pursue the rationalization of the work of the United Nations through changes which did not entail amendments to its founding Charter. Nevertheless, the present juncture is so crucial that we need to analyse where the defects that have prevented us from being more efficient as an Organization are to be found, in order to redress them. I would like to reiterate some of the basic positions Mexico maintains on the subject of the reform of the Organization, while at the same time adding now some comments regarding the proposals made by the Secretary- General, as well as referring to some decisions which we have taken recently. We maintain that absolutely scrupulous respect for the principles of law embodied in the Charter, including in the decisions the Security Council has to take on matters affecting the peace and security of the world, is a fundamental rule of conduct of countries in their international relations. Since 1945 Mexico has attacked the very concept of a division between permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council, basically because the existence of the two categories establishes a discriminatory situation — a situation which is exacerbated by the permanent members having been given the right of the veto, a privilege that has certainly been abused and has frequently prevented the Council from fulfilling its basic task. We also maintain that the need to increase the capacity of the United Nations to prevent conflicts and resolve those that exist requires not only the reform of the Security Council and its working methods, but also the strengthening of the mechanisms for resolving conflicts through peaceful means. With regard to the Secretary-General’s proposals, we welcome them and view with special interest the idea of strengthening the Secretariat by creating a post of Deputy Secretary-General and establishing a strategic planning unit. We do not believe, however, that the objective of cutting costs should guide the reform process. Avoiding duplication and implementing the programme of the Organization in an optimal way are the objectives that should guide our work. 24 Mexico has repeatedly maintained that the financial situation the Organization is experiencing stems from a failure to comply with the obligations derived from the Charter. The current financial situation has no link with the assessment system. The way to deal with it is by making full, timely and unconditional payments of the assessments the General Assembly assigns to Member States. If we must review the financial situation, then certainly all of us Member States are ready to do so, as long as the result is an equitable solution. The financial crisis of the Organization should not lead us to take decisions that distort the spirit of reform we share. Carried to the extreme, this logic would call for the designation of Ted Turner as a permanent member of the Security Council, with the right of veto. By the way, we appreciate Mr. Turner’s generosity. We view with concern some of the proposals made for merging subsidiary bodies of the Economic and Social Council — for example, the Commissions on Narcotic Drugs and Crime Prevention — which could in our view devalue the treatment accorded to these subjects. The merger of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Centre for Human Rights, on the other hand, would undoubtedly strengthen treatment of the subject. Thus, while we consider that the new tasks to be performed by the High Commissioner should be in conformity with the provisions of the international instruments in force and the guidelines of the competent bodies in this field, we strongly support this proposal. We also welcome Mary Robinson as High Commissioner. In relation to the reform of the Security Council, the Mexican Government wishes to draw particular attention to the following elements in the declaration adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the Rio Group on 24 August 1997 in Asunción, Paraguay, marking the first occasion on which that forum has conducted an in-depth exchange of views on this important issue. Reform of the Council is needed in order to correct the imbalances in its current composition, improve its decision-making mechanisms and make the conduct of its work more transparent. A reform resulting in treatment that discriminates between developed and developing countries would not be acceptable. The veto should be restricted, as a first step, to Chapter VII of the Charter. The expansion, the reform of working methods and the question of the veto form an integral part of the reform of the Security Council and should form parts of the same agreement; in other words, we view them as an indivisible whole. Lastly, the Heads of State and Government of the Rio Group reiterated their readiness to continue participating actively in the Working Group dealing with the subject, with a view to securing general agreement, and decided to give their Ministers for Foreign Affairs “responsibility for maintaining a broad dialogue on the issue which takes the regional interest into account and seeking understandings on the subject”. Representativeness, political legitimacy, the regional approach and consensus solutions are thus the elements that should guide the work being undertaken. To the extent that the above criteria are met, Mexico wants to make it clear that it is fully prepared to participate in an expanded, renewed and representative Security Council. Nevertheless, the reform of the Security Council must be a factor promoting cohesion and a catalyst of cooperation among countries. At present, there are so many and such diverse formulas that we run the risk of the issue causing divisions and tensions. Clearly, the international community has not yet found the formula for achieving consensus on this delicate matter. The issue calls for additional consultations and better definitions of the very meaning of reform. States cannot conceive of Security Council reform as a source of national prestige or a way of consolidating regional hegemonies. Any reform that is adopted must be inclusive and strengthen regional equilibriums, which are sometimes very fragile and very vulnerable. Today, the States Members of the United Nations appear, for the most part, to feel threatened more than imbued with hope by the proposals that are circulating with regard to the Security Council. A wave of lobbying and national and regional expectations has been unleashed in which the interests of the Organization itself are conspicuous by their absence. This is precisely the opposite of the spirit we want to achieve through reform. It would be paradoxical and unacceptable if this crucial challenge which the reform of the Security Council poses us were to result in a fragmenting of the United Nations at a time when unity of purpose and community of efforts are more important than ever. The issue is too important to be dealt with hastily. 25 The reform package proposed by the Secretary- General is capable of making rapid progress, supported by a broad consensus. The issue of the Security Council does not appear to have secured the same level of agreement. Let us make progress on the first and continue to reflect on the second.