Antigua and Barbuda, 2002

Let me

express my country's delight in having Mr. Jan Kavan

preside over this fifty-seventh session of the General

Assembly. Antigua and Barbuda owes much to the

Czech Republic and the adherents of the religious ideas

of Jan Hus, the Moravians, who arrived in Antigua in

the mid-eighteenth century and administered to the

slaves in a manner uncommon at that time. With

humanity and audacity they provided education to

chattel servants, which was certainly one of the

foundations that led to the development of a sturdy,

progressive, and optimistic people, who this year

celebrate the twenty-first anniversary of successful

independence.

Let me also pay tribute to Mr. Kavan's

predecessor, His Excellency Han Seung-soo, who

guided the fifty-sixth session through a perilous period,

yet found time to formulate positions to streamline our

work and enhance the functions of the President. I wish

additionally to welcome Switzerland into this body; we

are mindful of the contributions it has made to our

endeavours over the many years that we wished that it

would become formally incorporated.

On 18 June 2001 Antigua and Barbuda ratified

the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court

and was most pleased when on 11 April 2002 ten States

simultaneously deposited instruments of ratification,

which brought the number of States that had ratified

the Statute to 66, six more than was required to bring it

into force. The reality is that this has been achieved at

a remarkably swift pace, demonstrating that the

Governments and peoples of the globe recognized the

need for the existence of such a body. My own country

followed the process of development closely and

participated in many conferences, seminars and

preparatory commissions on the subject.

The adoption of the Statute manifested a

revolution in legal and moral attitudes toward some of

the worst crimes on earth. Whereas many developing

States have suffered under the hard yoke of

globalization, the International Criminal Court, with its

principles of justice and the rule of law in international

affairs represents a plus for the globalization process.

Nonetheless, much work remains to be done in

obtaining worldwide ratification of the Rome Statute,

ensuring that the Court will have the appropriate

mechanisms in place to begin functioning as early as

possible and disseminating information to stakeholders

at the national and international levels about the ICC,

the Rome Statute and its supporting documents.

The fears of some States concerning the operation

of the Court when it is effectuated next year must be

overcome. The Statute has sufficient checks and

balances to allay all fears, and we remain convinced

that the ICC will be a legitimate judicial institution to

adequately judge individuals for war crimes, genocide

and crimes against humanity. We reiterate our

conviction that this can be done while guaranteeing

States their rights, as they are protected from any

interference by the Court if they pursue such crimes at

the national level, and that the prosecutor's

autonomous power is accompanied by guarantees

against using the Court for specious or politically

motivated endeavours.

Although we are thrilled at the pace of

development with regard to the Court, if we look closer

it reveals the peripheral influence of Caribbean States.

27

It was Trinidad and Tobago that revived the idea of the

ICC 41 years after the idea was first discussed. But the

specific concerns that Trinidad and Tobago and other

Caribbean States advanced as reasons for creating the

ICC have been put on the back burner. We had pleaded

for a court that would try, and sentence, those involved

in the trans-shipment of narcotics, in carrying out acts

of terrorism and in committing marine violations,

including those in our territorial waters. I am sure that

it is not lost on members that in 1989 we were

emphasizing the need for the proposed court to try

terrorists. The Court is an acknowledgement of that. It

emphasizes genocide, crimes against humanity and war

crimes — and we support this. Yet we remain akin to

Ralph Ellison's “invisible man”.

During the previous session, there were three

major meetings on what can broadly be classified as

financing for development. At Doha, 142 countries

agreed to launch the next round of World Trade

Organization negotiations. Once again developing

countries, particularly those with monocultures, found

themselves stymied with regard to getting favourable

terms for their agricultural products, but were

successful in convincing developed countries that it

was acceptable to override patents to stem public

health crises such as HIV/AIDS. Developed nations

feared that that would diminish the effectiveness of the

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights and discourage pharmaceutical

research, but proponents of the change argued forcibly

from the humanitarian perspective.

Delegates from the developing countries left the

conference hoping to get better results at Monterrey —

a Conference whose title specifically referred to

financing for development. Unfortunately, most

decisions were made before the statements of the well-

prepared delegates from both developed and

developing countries could be structurally evaluated.

At Monterrey, there were repeated references by

both developed and developing countries to the fact

that half of the world's population lived on less than $2

a day. But to any objective observer, it was never clear

from the pronouncements of the dominant countries

whether they could best help by significantly

increasing foreign aid or by more concretely targeting

their assistance to make it more effective. Many of the

developing countries kept signalling that both measures

were necessary and should be undertaken.

It appeared that women were particularly

disappointed with the Conference. The Executive

Director of the United Nations Development Fund for

Women, Noeleen Heyzer, declared, “you cannot talk

about halving poverty without looking at the

feminization of poverty”. Heyzer was critical of the

fact that the Conference was working with static

poverty statistics. A member of her staff pointed out

that new ways of financing development had to

consider protecting domestic industries while preparing

women to take advantage of new opportunities.

Ms. Heyzer stated that the meeting should have

considered institutional and legal barriers to women's

advancement, such as banking systems that did not

lend to women, and customary laws which prevented

female ownership of land.

In reality, not only aid, but a complete

overhauling of the present unidimensional focus of

globalization should have come out of Monterrey. The

goals — halving the proportion of people living on less

than $1 a day by 2015, accelerating the process of

providing access by individuals to clean water, and

ensuring gender equity, particularly with regard to

education — cannot be considered to have been

adequately dealt with by simply stating that aid from

the developed world would increase from $50 billion to

$100 billion.

In addition, it must be recalled that only one third

of the $50 billion is spent in poor countries, while the

level of aid and the conditionalities attached to it

makes it difficult to spend the rest effectively. The

stringent conditions set by donors also have an impact

on the sovereignty of developing nations. Thus,

jumping from $50 billion to $100 billion without

revamping existing measures of disbursal and

implementation will not have the desired effect.

Fortunately, the developing countries, through

their perseverance, were able to receive greater

consideration in Johannesburg. The recent World

Summit on Sustainable Development represents the

strongest effort by the international community to

promote sustainable development through the adoption,

as set out in the Summit's Plan of Implementation, of

significant and concrete commitments to improve the

lives of people living in poverty and to reverse the

continuing degradation of the global environment.

As a small developing State, my country sought

to contribute to the overriding theme of the Summit:

28

the promotion of action. In this respect, we commend

the Summit for the major progress made in addressing

some of the most pressing concerns of small island

developing States, namely, poverty and the

environment, and welcome the commitments to

increase access to clean water and proper sanitation

and to energy services; to improve health conditions

and agriculture, particularly in dry lands; and to better

protect the world's biodiversity and ecosystems.

However the Summit's failure to agree on a target date

for increasing the use of renewable energy was a major

disappointment to all small island developing States.

The true test of the Summit's success will be in

the follow-up actions at all levels. While in and of

itself the Summit generated a sense of urgency,

commitments for action, and partnerships to achieve

measurable results, concerted activity must be

undertaken. Antigua and Barbuda therefore calls on all

actors to honour their commitments and undertake the

necessary actions to fight poverty and protect the

environment through the implementation of the

internationally agreed development goals, including

those contained in the General Assembly's Millennium

Declaration and Agenda 21, adopted in Rio de Janeiro

in 1992. This will require a significant increase in

financial resources, as elaborated in the Monterrey

Consensus.

Antigua and Barbuda has every intention of

adhering to the time allotment, but must of necessity

touch on a few other issues. Unfortunately, we must

recall the threat of terrorism. We have been working

diligently to fulfil the United Nations requirements in

that respect. We must, however, move ahead and plan

for the future positively. We welcome the New

Partnership for Africa's Development and are eagerly

awaiting the entry of East Timor into this body.

While welcoming East Timor, we must again

express our deep dissatisfaction that a referendum has

not been held in the Western Sahara. The question of

the Western Sahara involves the right of self-

determination, a fundamental principle of the United

Nations. As long as the conflict remains, the regional

security in a significant part of the Maghreb will

remain at risk. Clearly, the success or failure of the

United Nations will enhance or compromise the

credibility of the current international system.

A small developing State, such as Antigua and

Barbuda, cannot deliver a statement at the United

Nations General Assembly without mentioning the

imperfections of globalization and calling again for

meaningful remedies. When we consider the present

thrust toward globalization, we once again see our lack

of significance in the global scheme of operations.

Clearly, globalization leads to the reduction of the

sovereignty of States, with the weakest and the

smallest being the biggest losers. Sadly lacking in the

arguments for globalization is mention of the need to

give consideration to the pace, direction and content of

liberalization. We must bear in mind the different

levels of development and the need to build up national

capabilities. There is much insistence on free trade for

the developing world and yet exemptions from free

trade are claimed for the industrialized countries.

Protective devices are built in for farmers in the

dominant economies. These include subsidies,

guaranteed markets, payments not to produce beyond a

certain level in order to maintain means of processing,

and all of this is done under the most stringent of

guidelines.

On the other hand, when former colonial

countries provide preferences to their previous colonies

for investments, challenges are mounted through the

World Trade Organization by multinational enterprises.

All this is done with the clear knowledge that in

modern times there has never been free trade.

Recently, the envoy of a very large country,

seeking the support of Antigua and Barbuda for his

candidature to a major international committee, praised

our twin-island state for its prominence, rationality and

objectivity in international affairs. He went on to state

that small States are generally more objective in

recognizing which countries ought to have positions on

major international bodies. This is, in his view, due to

the fact that small States can consider issues without

having to take into consideration the pressures from

large armies and the need to maintain international

prominence. Consequently, small States view issues

from the perspective of how policies affect the entire

globe, of how there can be improvements for all

people, and of what the consequences of certain actions

will be.

It was an exchange that sobered and uplifted me

for an entire week. Yes, small States can contribute

much and have a significant role to play in the United

Nations. But we need to be looked at and to be listened

to. We have much to contribute. We will continue to

29

speak out, to speak up, to advocate, to plead and

entreat. We urge that we be fully recognized, for we are

positive, compassionate and forward-looking.

I end by offering to you the motto of my country:

“Each endeavouring: all achieving.”