I join other delegations in congratulating Mr. Harri Holkeri of Finland on his election to preside over the proceedings of the fifty- fifth session of the General Assembly, and on Finland's able service as Co-Chairperson of the Millennium Summit. My delegation's appreciation is extended also to the outgoing President, the Foreign Minister of Namibia. I take this opportunity also to express the distinct pleasure of the Government of Barbados at the fact that another member of the fraternity of small island developing States, Tuvalu, has recently taken its place at our table. Five short years ago, the United Nations celebrated its fiftieth anniversary with a massive gathering of world leaders not much different from the event which engaged our attention for the better part of last week. Then as now, the report card was weighed; then as now, amid critical assessment of its deficiencies and calls for bold reform, the Organization's continued validity was ultimately recognized and its unique and inherently positive role in multilateral relations emphatically supported. We hope that this time the Millennium Summit will have served as more than just a familiar echo reverberating, unchanged, at five-year intervals through these chambers, magnified among the myriad murmurs that linger from other occasions of 25 specialized summitry. For there is nothing inherently magical about the passing of a millennium, or a decade, or even a quinquennium. Indeed, the proliferation of plus fives in this place is enough to confound the entire fraternity of mathematicians and accountants. And none of us is totally confident that the final reckoning will leave us on the plus side of the ledger. On the contrary, it seems, sadly, that we have become consumed by the show, not the substance; the process, not the result; the plan, not the implementation. In this, the last year of the second Christian millennium, as we review the progress of the peoples of the planet over the past century, we find that, on balance, humankind has not done very well. In many fundamental ways, the twentieth century has not lived up to the promises and expectations that an era marked by such far-reaching technological change and innovation should have produced. In contrast, it has ushered in a time of unprecedented violence and suffering, visited mainly upon innocent civilians by international and internal warfare fought with increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry. The end of the ideological divide has not been followed by an era of peace and development, as we had all anticipated, but by a horrendous upsurge in genocidal, religious and ethnic conflicts. The threat of nuclear proliferation and biological warfare has only partially receded, and the scourges of terrorism, narco- trafficking and transnational crime continue to scar innocent lives and threaten democratic governance. While a few thousand souls live in obscene luxury, half of the world's population subsist on less than two dollars a day, and millions remain desperately poor, with no prospects of bequeathing a better life to their children. The new plague of the twentieth century, AIDS, continues its decimation, with disproportionate effects upon the poor in the developing world. In sum, our modern civilization has not evolved into a caring and enlightened species, but rather into one that has often abused the positive aspects of its heightened capacity and modernization to the detriment of humanity and of the earth. We well know that the United Nations is not, and cannot be, the panacea for all the problems of the twenty-first century, but we are convinced that it can and should serve as a mechanism through which the Governments of the world, and their people, can work in common cause to find real solutions to the most pressing global problems and challenges. In our increasingly interdependent world, there is little chance of success for unilateral action. This applies equally to the Organization's mandates for the maintenance of international peace and security and those for the promotion of economic development and social progress. Since the Organization's creation in 1945, the international landscape has changed considerably. Internecine and intra-territorial conflicts based on religious and ethnic differences have escalated, and the United Nations has seen its peacekeeping role used more in the last decade than ever before. At the same time, the effectiveness of that peacemaking and peacekeeping capacity has been called into question by international public opinion and Governments alike. We continue to expect miracles of the United Nations in ending the bloodshed in the most troubled corners of the world, but we seldom provide it with the tools, the financing and the appropriate mandate to allow for timely and decisive action. Without this support, United Nations peacekeeping efforts will remain reactive, and not preventive. One of the most complex issues currently being debated in the context of an enhanced role for the international community in the maintenance of international peace and security is the clash between the opposing tenets of sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. My delegation believes that this is a matter of such fundamental importance that it requires in-depth discussion and the elaboration, by broad-based consensus, of clear new rules under international law. For while we do not believe that the international community can stand idly by in the face of massive and genocidal violations of the human rights of citizens by power-hungry tyrants, we must at the same time ensure that any international response to such situations is not influenced primarily by the national ambitions of third States. Decisions must be based on clearly defined criteria, informed by an objective verification of the facts. Action must be confined to the saving of lives, not the overthrowing of Governments. Humanitarian intervention, however compelling the circumstances, must never be used as a guise for unwarranted interference in internal State governance. The balance sheet for the twentieth century in the area of economic and social development is similarly mixed. While the United Nations, through its 26 specialized agencies and programmes, has made great strides in the fight against hunger, disease and deprivation, that progress has not been evenly distributed. The goal of the alleviation and ultimate eradication of poverty remains largely unfulfilled, with desperate consequences for the growing numbers of the world's population who live in extreme poverty. Structural adjustment, the errant compass of the so- called lost decade of the 1980s, has taken its heavy social toll. So, too, has the burden of debt, which, despite the promise of debt forgiveness for the least developed countries and special initiatives for the highly indebted poor countries, continues to constrain future economic prospects for a large number of developing countries. At the same time, the decline in official development assistance has had a direct impact on the most vulnerable sectors of society I refer to women, children, the elderly and the infirm. The Secretary-General has challenged the international community to set a target for the halving of the numbers of the population living in extreme poverty by 2015. For this to be achieved, there is an urgent need for a higher level of political will and a shared commitment to create the necessary social and economic framework to enable the poor and dispossessed to redirect their lives. Education remains the most powerful tool for ensuring social progress and the betterment of living standards for the underprivileged. It is therefore one of the most disappointing truths of this closing century that the international community has failed in its collective endeavour to eradicate illiteracy, especially among children. Although in the developing world the adult literacy rate has increased by half, from 48 per cent in 1970 to 72 per cent in 1998, the information revolution now threatens to create a new category of functional illiterates. The eradication of illiteracy and the provision of at least primary basic schooling are eminently achievable goals. As an engine of social mobility, education stands as the most important component in ensuring the success of an individual and of a society. It is the greatest social liberator and facilitator of peace and is one of the fundamental pillars supporting democracy, competitiveness and social stability. The development of my country, Barbados, provides ample proof of how education can empower a people and foster upward mobility for each succeeding generation. Education has always been one of the highest priorities for the Government of Barbados and a major source of budget expenditure. We are one of the very few countries where access to education is free at point of delivery, mandatory up to 16 years of age and universal at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Currently, the Government of Barbados is embarked upon an ambitious programme within the schools known as EDUTECH 2000, which aims to ensure that every child is equipped to function successfully in the new information age. As we approach the new century, the world faces probably one of the most disastrous threats to its sustainability, a threat which has ended the lives of an unimaginable number of persons, crippled the economies and threatened the productive workforce of southern Africa, and taken an increasing toll in Asia and in my own subregion, the Caribbean. I am referring to the pandemic of AIDS/HIV. Current estimates indicate that there are over 33.4 million people worldwide who are now infected with the disease. In the Caribbean region alone, that figure numbers some 330,000, which is an astounding and frightening statistic to contemplate for a country like Barbados, with a population of 267,000 people. Our region has the highest prevalence per capita in the western hemisphere, and a prevalence second only to that of sub-Saharan Africa. It has been reported by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) that, every day, there are 16,000 new HIV infections and that 95 per cent of all reported AIDS cases occur in the developing world. The AIDS pandemic is, in our view, the gravest economic and social crisis facing the global community as we enter the twenty-first century. Many of our leaders and policy-makers are only now beginning to grasp the enormity of the problem and to fully appreciate the devastating impact which AIDS is having, and will continue to have, on the economic sustainability of every country, from the smallest, most undeveloped nation to the largest, most economically viable State, because AIDS is not only a human and a social tragedy it is also an economic one. It attacks our present workforce not only in its productive, but also in its reproductive capacity, thus simultaneously decimating the economic potential of two generations. It is a sobering reality that AIDS is now the leading cause of death among young men in the Caribbean, and it is projected that the disease may cause a decline in 27 the region's gross domestic product by as much as 4 to 6 per cent over the next decade. We cannot tackle this grave crisis solely on the basis of current strategies and financial flows. Containing the spread of AIDS and dealing with its economic impact is an immediate priority which will require a major commitment of human and financial resources. In this regard, I am pleased to note the serious attention now being given to the crisis by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank and other international financial institutions. Just yesterday in Barbados, a major conference was convened under the auspices of the World Bank, UNAIDS, the Pan American Health Organization/WHO, the United Nations Development Programme, the Caribbean Community and the Canadian International Development Agency to bring together high-level Caribbean health, education, economic development and labour-policy makers to map out a new crisis strategy for the Caribbean region. Barbados applauds the recommendations of the Secretary-General that the United Nations should adopt as an explicit goal the reduction of HIV-infection rates in persons 15 to 24 years of age by 25 per cent within the most affected countries before the year 2005 and by 25 per cent globally by 2010. The United Nations must make AIDS education and research a priority for the coming century. Determined leadership is needed to persuade Governments and international pharmaceutical companies that a partnership must be developed to combat the disease, both through research and through the provision of drugs at reasonable cost to those who are most in need. The trafficking in and abuse of illegal drugs have paralysed the development of many of our societies. They have also eroded the productivity of the work force and led to social discord, violence and a conspicuous erosion of values and respect for the rule of law. The countries of the Caribbean have not remained untouched by this affliction, both as transhipment and, more recently, sadly, as consuming States. In the fight against this menace, the United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) has played a crucial role and its subregional office in Barbados deserves special mention for its active support for our own efforts. In Barbados, UNDCP assistance has been invaluable in the establishment of the Integrated Drug Programme through our domestic National Council on Substance Abuse and also in facilitating our community outreach efforts. Of particular note too, has been its role in the establishment of an Anti-Money Laundering Authority in Barbados. As a small island developing State, Barbados is very aware that the natural environment performs for us free basic services without which human beings could not survive. At the same time, certain industrial and technological advances have threatened the biodiversity of many of the small island developing States. Therefore, for ecological reasons and for reasons of sovereignty and sustainable development, Barbados, on behalf of the Association of Caribbean States, last year launched an initiative leading to the adoption of resolution 54/225 on promoting an integrated management approach to the Caribbean Sea area in the context of sustainable development. We are grateful for the recognition by the General Assembly of the efforts of the Caribbean to protect and preserve our most precious resource. The functions of the Caribbean Sea are many and multi-layered. It is the source of our food, it is the main attraction which drives our tourism markets and it is our primary and most reliable link with the outside world. The destruction that would be caused if there were an accident involving nuclear waste or oil in our waters would be beyond catastrophic and it would take centuries for our environment to fully recover. We look forward to continued assistance from the international community in helping us to achieve the objectives of that resolution to maintain and protect this, our most vital natural resource. It remains the ultimate goal of the region to have the Caribbean Sea recognized as a special area within the context of sustainable development. In this spirit, Barbados also welcomes the newly established United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Ocean Affairs and intends to be an active participant in the consultative process. We welcome the efforts of the General Assembly to address the problems of over-exploitation of living marine resources and the degradation of the marine environment. The collective efforts of our Governments to alleviate poverty and disease and to help our human capital to take full advantage of the opportunities for 28 economic and social advancement take place within the parameters of a challenging new international order. Naturally, I refer to the phenomenon of globalization. Globalization is not entirely new. It has existed in various incarnations among trading nations throughout history. What makes the modern incarnation different, however, is the manner in which the accompanying information revolution is making possible the integration of trade, investment, finance, production and services across national boundaries. What also distinguishes it is the philosophy of multilateralism, which offers all countries, developed and developing, a say at least in theory in shaping the rules which will henceforth govern international economic transactions. Nor is globalization as a concept inherently negative. The precepts of expanding market access, trade liberalization, increased technological advancement and more efficient and effective mechanisms of manufacturing and agriculture are all positive elements. It is in the rigid application of these elements, however, and their application without regard to the social dimension of development, that distortions have arisen which threaten to widen further the income gap between the developed and the developing worlds. I reiterate that the true challenge of the new multilateralism will be to ensure that globalization does not become an instrument of oppression for the peoples of the developing world, but, rather, becomes a means of offering a better life to all of our peoples. In our efforts to sensitize the developed world to the need for adequate transitional measures for developing countries and for recognition of the special vulnerabilities of small economies, Barbados has frequently pointed to the fact that our Caribbean countries are being asked to undertake in 10 years a process which was carried out by the advanced industrialized societies over a period of more than 40 years, spread over eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations between 1947 and 1994. In this regard, we have emphasized that, however clinically sound a procedure might be, the compression of its application into too short a time period can often be a fatal therapy. One of the greatest essential inequalities of the contemporary global economy is that, while the developed world was allowed an extended period over which to properly phase in trade liberalization, to its benefit, smaller, less endowed societies with less scope to absorb the shocks of adjustment are expected to make a potentially beneficial adjustment over an incredibly short period of time. It would not have worked for the developed world; it will not now work for the developing, and is in fact the consideration which argues the case for longer phase-in periods to apply the changes in the global trading regime. Barbados is not opposed to globalization. We have already indeed begun the process of restructuring our economy and repositioning our society to meet that challenge. But our efforts, we believe, must be met by a similar display of good faith on the part of the World Trade Organization, which must, as my Government has repeatedly stated, review, repair and reform itself, adopt an ideology that is developmental and embrace a developmental agenda that is progressive and balanced in its substance, its processes and its outcomes. That display of good faith is also necessary in promoting constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue between the industrialized countries and their developing country partners on the crucial matter of the regulation of international financial centres in their jurisdictions. My country has spoken extensively in other forums about our serious concerns over the unilateral manner in which the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has proceeded on its so-called harmful tax competition initiative, and on the real motives underlying this unfortunate move. The setting of international rules in the area of financial services cannot properly be done by a grouping of 29 countries to the exclusion of all other interested parties. In this age of enlightened multilateralism there is no place for the application of unilateral, extra-territorial solutions to international economic developments. On balance, we must not allow our frustration at the many missed opportunities to obscure the fact that the twentieth century has produced much that is positive. As we look forward, in the words of the Prime Minister of Barbados, the Right Honourable Owen Arthur: We face the prospect that the simultaneous operation of the enormous power of technological change, the dismantling of barriers to the movement of output, capital, ideas and skills, and the emergence of rules-based, consensus-driven institutions of global scope will create a new global society that is capable of affording development to all, and of putting the scourge of poverty behind us for ever. We will leave the twentieth century and enter the twenty-first conscious of the dangers, but excited by the prospects.