Allow me at
the outset to convey my congratulations to the
President of the General Assembly and to wish him
very fruitful work.
Can you imagine a General Assembly where the
representatives of States and Governments who follow
one another on this rostrum would bring us only good
news, inform us that our world is doing better and that
most development indicators are at their best level
ever? We are very far indeed from such an ideal.
It would even seem that, in addition to numerous
crises of all kinds — food, energy, financial and so
forth — that are already exacting a very high toll on
our populations, some of us must now get used to
recurrent upheavals resulting from natural disasters.
Each time, we have to rebuild the same ruined
infrastructure; we have to restore the same productive
capacities that have been swept away by cyclones and
floods. And, for lack of sufficient resources, the
reconstruction process is never launched in time. We
find we are having to prepare for the return of these
disasters even before our communities have recovered
from the previous ones. This, evidently, is the new life
cycle that vulnerable countries such as ours must be
prepared for. With, of course, insufficient resources at
their disposal.
39 09-52425
This situation is no accident. It is the direct
consequence of a development and governance model
that nations recognized as powerful have imposed on
the rest of the world for centuries: a development and
governance model that is largely concerned with the
welfare of money and too little with the welfare of
people; a development model that, even in very rich
countries, imposes a precarious existence on major
sections of the population, which lack health care,
decent housing and even a good education.
Why should the whole of humankind accept that
half the inhabitants of our planet should live with these
privations, in hunger and misery, with no prospect of
improvement in their situation? Why should the whole
of humankind accept that our planet should be
endangered irresponsibly, that species should be
condemned to extinction or that, through climate
change, our populations should become more
vulnerable to natural disasters merely because of
selfish economic choices by a small minority of
polluters?
What substance can we give to our membership
in this human community that the United Nations seeks
to champion? To paraphrase George Orwell, beyond a
certain level of inequality, there is no common world
anymore. The glaring inequalities that characterize our
countries’ situations are an obstacle to the formation of
the great family that the United Nations should be.
The time has come to oppose the globalization of
profit at any price, which has become the new credo,
and to replace it with the globalization of solidarity,
which alone will ensure the eradication of poverty, as
required by this Assembly.
Here, I should reiterate to members that the true
vehicle for peace, stability and security is development.
The aid received by our countries will be ineffective
and a source of great frustration for donors and
beneficiaries unless it is part of a plan to create and
develop the productive potential of our countries. That
is the only way to put an end to the cycle of poverty
and dependence.
Haitians, like many other peoples of the South,
are a hardworking, clever and entrepreneurial people
equipped with great resilience forged by dealing with
daily setbacks and able to utilize to the extreme and
optimize the scant resources made available to them.
Our peoples yearn to mobilize that potential and that
capacity to take the path of sustainable development.
Developing our countries is thus a possible
endeavour. However, all the efforts under way could
remain ineffective unless we are able to develop a new
paradigm for international cooperation — a paradigm
requiring that we transcend the logic of human
assistance and recognize the capacity of poor peoples
to engage in business and produce wealth, using the
means and opportunities afforded them to strengthen
their productive capacity. Without such a new vision,
which breaks with the culture of perpetual
humanitarian assistance, peace and stability will
remain precarious and fleeting achievements.
Permit me to add a few words about Haiti,
because my country is the focus of particular attention
by the Security Council. Over the past three years,
despite the negative effects of numerous international
crises on our economy, significant progress has been
made, in particular in the areas of security, respect for
human rights, the investment climate, eliminating
corruption and building a friendly society in which
dialogue occupies a central place, supported and
reported on by totally free and independent media.
That progress must be deepened and expanded. That is
why United Nations support is necessary for us.
In his report to the Security Council, the
Secretary-General recommended that the mandate of
the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
(MINUSTAH) be extended for another year. That
proposal is most welcome, and we fully endorse it. We
are convinced that the right balance among its military,
police and administrative components will best place
MINUSTAH to assist our country more effectively in
consolidating an atmosphere of peace and stability,
without making it indifferent to our struggle to rebuild
and to reduce poverty and vulnerability. I thank the
Secretary-General for having chosen Bill Clinton as his
Special Envoy to our country. I also thank the former
President, a friend of Haiti, for having agreed to help
us.
Many summits organized under United Nations
auspices produce resolutions and commitments that are
consigned to oblivion or indifference when the time
comes to implement them. It is our shared
responsibility to work to ensure that this general debate
is not pure ritual in which, from this lofty rostrum, we
use rhetoric to share our ideas about major
international issues, express our good intentions, make
tempting promises and leave again without any real
09-52425 40
desire to take appropriate measures to keep our
commitments.
For example, will we accept the fact that the
President of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya,
legitimately elected by his people, has been deposed by
the military and that the many resolutions adopted by
various regional organizations condemning that coup
d’état remain dead letters? Similarly, every year for
more than 15 years now, the General Assembly has
adopted a resolution condemning the embargo against
the Cuban people. The continuation of that embargo
runs counter to all the values that we promote to make
international trade a tool for human development.
When will rhetoric be replaced by action?