Cuba

Last century bore witness to two terrible world wars, in which over 80 million human beings perished. It later seemed that, due to the lessons learned, the United Nations Organization was born so that war would never again occur. The Charter, adopted in San Francisco nearly 60 years ago, proclaimed the purpose of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war'. However, after that we suffered wars of aggression and conquest, colonial wars, border wars and ethnic wars. Many peoples were left with no other choice but war to defend their rights. Moreover, in the last 13 years the scourge of war has taken another 6 million lives. Sixty years ago, the world order proclaimed in the United Nations Charter was sustained through the military balance of two super-Powers. A bipolar world was born, which generated clashes, divisions, the cold war and almost a devastating nuclear war. It was not the ideal world, far from it. But since one of those super-Powers has disappeared, the current world is worse and more dangerous. Now world order cannot be held together in the spheres of influence of two similar super-Powers or by mutual deterrence. What should it be founded on, then? On the honest and generous recognition by the only super-Power that, far from disturbing it, should contribute to the creation of a peaceful world, with the right to justice and development for all. Does the war in Iraq contribute to that objective? No, it does not. Its outcome is just the opposite of the ideal of preserving peace, strengthening the role of the United Nations and enhancing multilateralism and international cooperation. Unfortunately, the truth is that those most able to prevent and remove threats to peace are the ones causing war today. Should the Government of the United States recognize this truth that almost everyone in this Hall shares? Yes. What humiliation or harm would there be to the prestige of this great nation? None. The world would recognize that a remedy benefiting all had come about, after the unleashing of a war supported by just a few, either by shortsightedness or by meanness of interests; after it was proven that the pretexts brandished were not true; and after observing the reaction of a people who, as every invaded and occupied people will do, have begun to fight and will continue to fight for respect for their right to self-determination. 23 Therefore, must the occupation in Iraq cease? Yes, and the sooner the better. It is a source of new and more serious problems, not of solutions. Must the Iraqis be left alone to freely establish their own Government and institutions and make decisions on their natural resources? Yes. It is their right, and they will not stop fighting for it. Must the Security Council be pressured into adopting decisions that would further undermine it ethically and morally? No. That would eliminate the last possibility to profoundly reform, expand and democratize the Council. The future of the United Nations will be determined today in the outcome of the international crisis generated by the war in Iraq. The most critical danger stalking us today is the persistence of a world where what prevails is the law of the jungle, the might of the most powerful, the privileges and extravagance of a handful of countries, and the dangers of aggression, underdevelopment and hopelessness for the vast majority. Will a worldwide dictatorship be imposed on our peoples, or will the United Nations and multilateralism be preserved? That is the question. We all agree, I believe, that the role of the United Nations is irrelevant today, or at least is on its way to being so. But some of us say so with concern and would like to strengthen the Organization. Others say so with covert satisfaction and encourage the hope of imposing their designs on the world. We must speak frankly. What role does the General Assembly play today? In truth, almost none. It is merely a debating forum without any true influence or practical role whatsoever. Are international relations governed by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter? No. Why now, when philosophy, the arts and science are reaching unprecedented levels, is the superiority of some peoples over others once again proclaimed? And why are other peoples, who should be treated as brothers and sisters, referred to as living in the dark corners of the planet or on the Euro-Atlantic periphery of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Why do some among us feel entitled to launch a unilateral war, given the fact that in the Charter we proclaimed that military force would only be used to serve the common interest and that collective measures should be taken to preserve peace? Why is there no longer any talk about using peaceful means to settle disputes? Can we believe that everyone is fostering friendship among our nations on the basis of respect for the principle of equality of rights and the self-determination of peoples? Why then has my people had to suffer, and continue to suffer, from over four decades of aggression and economic blockade? The principle of the sovereign equality for all States was established when the Charter was adopted. Are we in fact equal? Do all Member States enjoy similar rights? According to the Charter we do, but according to stark reality we do not. Respect for the principle of the sovereign equality of States, which should be the cornerstone of contemporary international relations, will only be established if the most powerful countries accept in real terms that they must respect the rights of others, even if those other countries lack the military might and the economic power to defend those rights. Are the mightiest and most developed countries ready to respect the rights of others, even if doing so might perhaps slightly restrain the privileges they enjoy? I am afraid that they are not. Are the principles of the non-use or the threat of use force, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for the territorial integrity and independence of States actually in force? According to the language and the spirit of the Charter, they are. But are they really? It is true that a handful of developed countries has benefited from the current situation over the last few decades. But that time is coming to an end. Those countries are also beginning to become victims of the imperial policies of a single super-Power. Should they not take into account, with modesty and common sense, the need to work with the over 130 Third World countries that have been compelled to endure this unjust order and that are ready to attempt to persuade the most powerful country to put aside its arrogance and to comply with its duties as a founder of the United Nations? Cuba believes that we should not, and cannot, relinquish multilateralism; that we should not, and cannot, relinquish the United Nations; and that we cannot, and should not, relinquish the struggle for a world of peace, justice, equality and development for all. Cuba therefore believes that we must achieve three immediate objectives. First and foremost, we must put an end to the occupation of Iraq, hand over real control to the United Nations immediately and begin the recovery process to re-establish Iraq's sovereignty and put in place a 24 legitimate Government decided upon by the Iraqi people. In addition, the scandalous distribution of Iraq's wealth must cease immediately. That will be beneficial for the United States, whose young people are dying in Iraq while waging an unjust and inglorious war. It will be beneficial for Iraq, whose people will be able to turn over a new page in their history. It will be beneficial for the United Nations, which has also been a victim of that war. And it will be beneficial for all of our countries, which have had to suffer international economic recession and an increase insecurity that is threatening us all. Secondly, we must address without delay the issue of truly reforming the United Nations and, above all, undertake a far-reaching democratization process. The current situation is already untenable, as evidenced, first of all, by the Security Council's shameful inability to prevent the war in Iraq and, secondly, by its demand on the Government of Israel to refrain from expelling or murdering the leader of the Palestinian people a people who, in accordance with a decision the Council itself took over five decades ago, should long ago have had an independent State. That the Government of the United States has exercised its veto power on 26 occasions to protect the crimes of Israel is evidence of the fact that that unjust privilege must be abolished. What is needed is a reform that goes back to the roots of the founding of the United Nations; that guarantees effective respect for the Charter; and that re-establishes the mechanisms of collective security and the rule of international law. Reform should also ensure the ability of the United Nations to preserve peace and to lead the fight for general and complete disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, to which many generations have aspired. Reform should also restore to the United Nations its prerogatives to fight for the socio-economic development and the basic rights of all the planet's inhabitants, including the rights to food and life. Doing so is more necessary than ever before, given that neo-liberalism has spectacularly failed and that a new opportunity now exists for establishing a new system of international economic relations. We need to rescue the role of the United Nations and to ensure that all States, large and small, respect the Charter. But we do not need a reform that is going to founder unceremoniously as part of a bureaucratic process of adapting what is left of the United Nations to the interests and whims of a few, rich and mighty countries. Finally, we need to return to a discussion of the serious economic and social problems currently affecting the world. We have to make the battle for the right of nearly five billion people to development a priority. The Millennium Assembly committed us to working for very modest and insufficient goals. But everything has now been forgotten, without even a discussion. Seventeen million children under the age of 5 will die this year, not as victims of terrorism but as victims of under-nourishment and preventable diseases. Will a realistic debate based on solidarity be held in this Hall to discuss how, in line with the Millennium Declaration, to halve by 2015 the number of people, currently over 1.2 billion in number, who are suffering from abject poverty, as well as the number who suffer from hunger, which is more than 800 million? Will there be any discussion about the nearly 900 million illiterate adults? Or will the Millennium Declaration also become a dead letter, as has been the case with the Kyoto Protocol and the decisions of 10 summits held at the level of head of State? Developed countries will provide Third World countries with $53 billion in official development assistance this year. In return, those countries will charge recipients over $350 billion in foreign debt interest; and our foreign debt will have grown by the end of the year. Do creditors by any chance believe that that unjust situation will last forever? Should we, as debtors, resign ourselves to being poor forever? Is that picture of injustice and peril confronted by most countries what the founders of the United Nations really dreamed of? No. Like us, the founders also dreamed that a better world was possible. Those are the questions that, with all due respect, we would like some in the Hall to answer for us. I am not talking about Cuba, which, condemned to die for wanting to be free, has had to fight on its own, not only thinking about itself but also about all the peoples of the world.