Germany, 1997

I congratulate

you, Mr. President, on assuming your responsible office.

Major decisions are to be taken at this session and I wish

you good fortune in your conduct of the proceedings.

I wish to thank Ambassador Razali for his

exceptional commitment. He has made us all aware of the

great responsibility we carry during this phase of reform.

The Secretary-General, through the impressive manner in

which he presented his reform proposals, has

re-emphasized that responsibility.

Nowhere else are we so acutely aware as at the

United Nations General Assembly that, regardless of our

origins or the colour of our skin, we have a common

destiny and that we all, North and South, the small

countries and the big countries, need one another.

Millions of people all over the world, especially our

youth, ask themselves whether we politicians and

delegates from 185 nations have drawn the right

conclusions from this; whether we can summon the

political will for joint action to improve their security, to

give them better opportunities in life, and to safeguard

their rights, or whether we will go on wasting and

destroying the natural sources of human life at their

10

expense. Those of us with adult children know how

sceptical their generation have become about the

capabilities of the governing class. That is good reason for

all of us to stop, think and take action, and to do so here

and now.

The world about which we are talking here today and

the world which we participate in shaping is not ours alone.

We have to preserve it for future generations as well. And

this we can achieve only through a united effort. For we are

only one world community that has to survive together.

There is only one boat for all, our vulnerable blue planet,

and there is only one common future, good or bad. That is

the reality we face as we cross over into the third

millennium and it is the reason why policies deriving from

a sense of responsibility are not utopian. Indeed, in our age

they are the only realistic approach.

The world organization’s programmes and funds, that

is to say, those of the United Nation’s Children’s Fund

(UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme,

the United Nations Population Fund and the World Food

Programme, together dispense more than $4.6 billion a year

in the form of economic and social aid. That comes to

about 80 cents for every person on earth. By contrast, in

1994 the world’s Governments spent about $767 billion on

arms, which was roughly $134 per person. This gross

disproportion is intolerable.

I believe that we must all look beyond the rim of our

own national interests. There is no more time to lose. We

cannot simply come here, make and listen to speeches and

then return to business as usual for another 12 months. We

have a duty and responsibility to leave our children and

grandchildren a world which is worthy of humankind. And

that means doing something about it now, today. We must

protect the earth’s atmosphere by reducing greenhouse-gas

emissions. We must ban lethal anti-personnel landmines by

joining in the Ottawa process. We cannot accept that we

have hundreds of millions of anti-personnel landmines still

in place in the ground of many, many countries in this

world of ours.

We must halt the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction, and we must streamline the United Nations

Organization. But above all, we must pay our contributions

on time and in full. These are the criteria which show

whether we are living up to our responsibility.

The opportunity for effective action is there. Despite

carping criticism, international cooperation within the

United Nations framework is working. Malnutrition and

undernourishment have been reduced by a third since

1960 and illiteracy by 50 per cent. Most of the credit for

this, no doubt, goes to the United Nations. Infant

mortality has been halved in the same period — a great

achievement by UNICEF.

Between 1990 and 1995 the world population

increased by 1.48 per cent, considerably less than the 1.72

per cent growth between 1985 and 1990. This nourishes

the hope that we have got over the hump of the

population explosion. Again, this is a big achievement

largely attributable to the work of the United Nations

Population Fund.

Much, I am pleased to note, has also been done to

improve the situation of women. This is important

because with all the tremendous social challenges we

face, the success of our efforts depends heavily on them.

They are the natural advocates of future generations. That

is why one of our main objectives still is to ensure they

have equal rights, not only on paper but also in practice.

The World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna,

the Earth Summit in Rio, the International Conference on

Population and Development in Cairo, the Summit for

Social Development in Copenhagen and the World

Conference on Women in Beijing have demonstrated that

the strategies for creating a better and more equitable

world are in place. What is missing is the political will to

put them into effect. We must learn to give common

interests priority over national interests.

We must start to think not only of the present but of

the future as well. The first step — and I think it cannot

be underlined enough — is to reform and strengthen the

Organization which embodies all these objectives: the

United Nations, our United Nations.

There has been enough talk. Time is running out. At

this fifty-second session, the General Assembly must

make decisions. The backlog of reforms must be dealt

with during this session.

True, Governments and politicians don’t possess a

magic wand with which to put the world in order. And I

readily admit, as a politician, that it is disappointing to

discover how relatively little we ourselves can change,

even in high positions, and I take it that it is the same

with the others present here. But that does not absolve us

from the responsibility to do everything in our power to

bring about necessary change and progress.

11

There is more than enough to be done. The world is

still profoundly unjust. From the moment of their birth,

millions of people have hardly any chance of leading a life

in conditions worthy of the human race. According to

UNICEF, more than 20 million children all over the world

are on the move. About 300,000 children were killed in the

Rwanda massacres. As a result of the 17-year-old war in

Afghanistan, another 280,000 or so have died from

undernourishment and disease. The civil war in Cambodia

has made some 350,000 children orphans. Every 90 minutes

a child is maimed by a landmine.

Yet it is on our children, the weakest members of any

society, be it in the North or the South of our planet, that

the world’s future and hopes depend. They are the weakest

members of any society. They are little people who need

big rights. How much worse off would they be if there

were no United Nations? What would become of the

world’s conscience? Who would demand consideration for

and solidarity with such children if we allowed this

Organization to decline?

At this moment about 25,000 soldiers, civilians and

members of non-governmental organizations are serving the

cause of peace around the globe. All of them deserve our

thanks and appreciation.

A week ago today five Germans, including the Deputy

of the High Representative, Ambassador Gerd Wagner, five

Americans, a Briton and a Pole lost their lives in a tragic

accident. We mourn their loss and share the grief of their

families. Their deaths are an admonition to redouble our

efforts for peace. They wanted to help people in need and

in doing so brought a ray of hope to Bosnia and to the

people working on the ground. That hope must not be

extinguished.

Last Saturday I attended the memorial service in

Sarajevo. I have visited the region more than once, and the

inner conflict among the people was again obvious. As

before, the main obstacles to lasting peace in the region are

hatred and fear among the various ethnic groups. On the

other hand, most Bosnians, in spite of the terrible events of

recent years, realize there is no future for them and their

children if the hatred and fear are not overcome, despite all

the terrible things that have been done, despite the rapes

and the “ethnic cleansing”.

That is why I am speaking out here today — to appeal

to all political leaders in Bosnia to change their attitude and

to mount a reconciliation campaign. The international

community has provided assistance, making millions of

dollars available. We have done a lot. We are very

committed on the ground, and we want to see the results

of what we have done. We believe that those who live in

security and peace have an obligation to help others.

So far more than 300 troops have sacrificed their

lives for the cause of peace in Bosnia. My country

alone — Germany — has spent more than 17 billion

marks on the peace process and on the more than 350,000

asylum-seekers in Germany coming from Kosovo. That is

a lot of money, and those on whom we spend it will have

to react in some way and have to give us a clear sign of

their willingness to implement the agreements.

But outside help, including military support, cannot

be provided indefinitely. And on no account — I want to

be unequivocal about this — will it be given to those who

thwart peace and reconciliation. Attempts to undermine

peace, to incite the people and to torpedo the

implementation of the Dayton Agreement, especially in

Republika Srpska — must stop.

I appeal to all political factions in the region to use

what time remains to launch a new and serious attempt to

settle their differences and to see to it that Karadzic and

other alleged war criminals and enemies of peace are

brought before the Hague Tribunal. These people must

not be allowed to sleep peacefully. But this demand must

be made by the international community, not just

Germany: these people must not be allowed to sleep

peacefully.

We Europeans have done quite a lot this year to

improve the situation on our continent in order to secure

a peaceful future for coming generations. Nations that

belong together are now growing together, and that in a

region that for centuries was divided and at war with

itself. The European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization are gradually opening up to Europe’s new

democracies, while Russia and Ukraine are forming a

new, close partnership with both organizations.

And let the world be prepared. In 1999 we

Europeans, right on schedule and in conformity with

binding stability criteria, will introduce the Euro, the

common European currency. The enlargement of the

European Union and the introduction of the Euro are

historic steps to safeguard the future for coming

generations, steps that hardly anyone would have thought

possible only 10 years ago. And mark my words: there

will be no going back in Europe.

12

At the same time, we are aware that Europe

constitutes only a small section of the much larger global

construction site. Everywhere the harbingers of the new era

are knocking on the door. Nothing is like it used to be, yet

the hopes and wishes of citizens everywhere have remained

the same. They want peace and work. They want a roof

over their heads, protection from crime, and schools for

their children.

Thus the aims and ideals enshrined in the Charter are

just as valid as they were in 1945: peace, sustainable

economic and social development, protection of human

rights and democracy. These aims form a whole, and there

is no order of preference.

Eighty per cent of United Nations activities focus on

world poverty, and rightly so, because this is the big

problem that has remained unsolved since the ending of the

East-West confrontation. Nearly a quarter of the world’s

population — 1.3 billion people — live in poverty, while

840 million suffer from chronic undernourishment. In the

Agenda for Development we have adopted the right course

for the fight against poverty: good governance, market

economy, the rule of law, security for the citizen, regional

cooperation and international integration.

Following the lead of the Association of South-East

Asian Nations countries (ASEAN), the Southern Cone

Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the now-expanding

Southern African Development Community (SADC), the

nations of Central America too are forming closer ties. It is

becoming more and more apparent that this is the path of

progress. The worldwide trend towards closer multilateral

cooperation is increasing, and will lead to progress, security

and prosperity; it is the path of the future. One the one

hand, the Information Age with undreamed-of possibilities,

and, on the other, exclusive communities and citizens

without rights — this does not add up.

Yes, globalization is a great leveller. Basically, it

confronts industrial and developing countries alike with the

same question: are we going to accept the challenge of

being part of a “single world market”, or are we going to

mark time? A good number of newly industrialized and

developing countries have chosen the way forward, and it

has proved to be the right one. They have received the bulk

of global direct investment, which in 1996 increased by 8

per cent to almost $350 billion. Nor have the others been

forgotten. Within the framework of the G-8 process, the

new global partnership for development was established on

their behalf. A beginning was made at the Denver summit

in June, focusing particularly on the sub-Saharan nations

of Africa.

Since 1978 Germany has cancelled debts incurred by

the least developed countries and other land-locked

developing countries in Africa amounting to more than 9

billion marks. These countries will continue to be the

focal point of our development cooperation. Between

1991 and 1995 Germany made available 16.3 billion

marks for Africa’s sub-Saharan nations, and we are proud

of that.

I am glad that the Security Council is holding a

special meeting tomorrow on the situation in Africa.

Many positive developments have taken place there in

recent years, a fact that is often overlooked.

But light and shadow are still very close together. I

need only mention Congo Brazzaville, Sierra Leone,

Somalia and especially the Great Lakes region. My

country, the Federal Republic of Germany, has played a

humanitarian and political role in all these conflicts, and

we recognize that the African States themselves — in the

Organization of African Unity (OAU) and in the

subregional organizations — are making significant

efforts to settle these conflicts. We must keep on

supporting them.

But Africa’s real problems lie deeper, in the social

and economic sphere, and in the lack of cohesion among

the different population groups. In my view, Europe’s

vast and important neighbouring continent, which has a

population of about 800 million covers about 23 per cent

of the world’s land surface, has little chance of achieving

stability and economic progress unless it follows the path

of regional cooperation. Such cooperation brings stability

where nations are too weak to achieve it individually.

Southern Africa is a good example. At the 1994

Berlin conference, cooperation between the SADC and the

European Union was raised to a new level. At our

meeting in June we and our African colleagues redefined

the framework for the dialogue between the European

Union and the OAU. Europe will stay on Africa’s side.

Part of this support is that we are helping countries

like Angola and Mozambique to rid themselves of the

scourge of mines. So far mine clearance by hand has

been, at least to me, like trying to remove a sand-dune

with a thimble. We cannot accept that. What we need for

this task is safe, large-capacity machinery.

13

The Oslo Conference gave rise to a sign of hope.

Eighty countries have put their names to a comprehensive

and verifiable ban on anti-personnel mines. I wish to thank

the Secretary-General for his personal efforts on this issue.

Anyone who, like me, has seen the poor, crippled victims

in Cambodia, Mozambique or Bosnia knows that these

treacherous killing devices are wholly — I repeat,

wholly — immoral. I therefore appeal to all countries still

on the outside to join the Ottawa process and help us ban

these infernal devices from the face of the Earth.

The world, galvanized by the spirit of freedom, has

been totally transformed. But this new freedom and its by-

products constitute a major test for us all, not only as

regards competitiveness but also as regards our solidarity,

our ability to show tolerance and to work together, and the

opening of markets.

The East-West conflict has been consigned to the past.

Here too, the question now is: are we going to try and

safeguard the future for posterity, or are we going to allow

new enemy stereotypes to divide us once again? There must

be no clash of civilizations. Hence, the dialogue of

civilizations and world religions must be raised to a new

level. To me this is the spiritual challenge as we approach

the twenty-first century, for only thus can we bring

different standpoints closer together and mobilize the

energies needed for the joint resolution of humanity’s

colossal problems.

I suggest that we hold a forum here at the United

Nations to consider how we can generate new momentum

for this dialogue worldwide. The matter is important

enough. Considerable cultural energy and potential for

innovation lie unused, and the United Nations is the proper

catalyst for their development.

But we must be very clear that there cannot and

should not be dialogue with terrorists. Terrorism has again

raised its ugly head in Mostar, Jerusalem and Cairo. The

vileness of the latest carnage in Algeria would be difficult

to exceed: it really does take your breath away. How long

can the international community look away? I know how

difficult it is to help from the outside, but the world

community cannot accept the cruel killing of utterly

innocent people in the dark of night without standing up

and reacting. We are not powerless in the face of such evil

slaughter of mostly uninvolved persons. In Denver, the

Group of Eight called upon all nations to sign the

international conventions on terrorism. We must resolutely

combat terrorism all over the world, using all democratic

means at our disposal. I call upon the General Assembly to

complete by the end of this session the negotiations on a

convention against terrorist bomb attacks, as proposed by

the Group of Eight.

Extradition or suitable punishment remains the

principle underlying our efforts to combat terrorism. No

one should give refuge to terrorists. We need a united

global front against terrorism. To combat fanatical killers

we can only consistently apply the law as well as police

and judicial measures. The source of sympathy for

terrorist objectives must be withered by political means.

In other words, we must get to the roots, which in most

cases are social problems.

On my last visit to the Middle East I spoke with

many citizens in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron, and

in the refugee camps in Gaza. I sensed their fears and

concerns. Those who have seen the wretched conditions

in the camps know that these people must be given a

chance to improve their lives. They need to be able to

hope again that the peace process is something from

which they will benefit, that the violence will stop, that

they can find work and have enough to eat, and that their

children can go to school.

For these hopes to materialize, both sides must show

a large measure of good will. President Arafat must do

everything in his power to stop the terrorism. And the

Israeli Government must desist from any measures which

cause the Palestinians to doubt Israel’s commitment to

peace. The settlements issue remains the crucial test here;

at least, that is what I believe. Continuing to build in Har

Homa only makes matters worse, so a moratorium is

essential. To my mind, this is the only way to reopen the

door to peace talks.

As for Iran, the new Government has changed its

tone. It remains to be seen whether this will lead to a

new, constructive policy, especially with regard to the

Middle East peace process, human rights and international

law. Germany has always maintained close and friendly

relations with the Iranian people, and in spite of all that

has happened, in spite of the Mykonos affair, we are

ready for talks. It is up to the Iranian Government to

provide the basis on which these can take place.

We are pleased that Mrs. Robinson has taken up her

post as the new High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Nowhere is the need for a new culture of dialogue so

great, we believe, as in the process of protecting such

rights. This is crucial to world peace and global

development. Any society that fails to respect human

14

rights, which include the right of development, is blocking

its own progress. Our policy on this matter is based on

dialogue and respect for different cultures. But we also

agree with Pope John Paul II, who has said that if we want

peace we must respect the conscience of the people. No

civilization or religion denies people their rights or

approves of murder and torture. Nor can any such action be

justified on political grounds.

We need an international criminal court of justice. The

statute of such a court is to be drawn up in Rome next

summer. The court must be empowered to act of its own

accord where genocide, crimes against humanity, war

crimes and wars of aggression are concerned, and to do so

wherever national courts either do not exist or cannot or are

unwilling to prosecute such crimes. The terrible genocides

in Rwanda and Srbrenica are warning signs. Such cardinal

crimes should not go unpunished.

Our responsibility towards future generations is

particularly acute where protection of the natural sources of

life is concerned. That is why it is crucial to maintain the

spirit engendered by the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development, the Rio Summit. That is the

purpose of the environment initiative put forward by

Chancellor Kohl together with Brazil, South Africa and

Singapore.

The climate conference to be held in Kyoto in

December will be a major test of the industrial world’s

commitment to the environment. Germany intends to reduce

its greenhouse-gas emissions by 25 per cent by the year

2010, based on 1990 levels. We and our partners in the

European Union are asking the other industrial countries to

cut theirs by at least 15 per cent. That would go part of the

way towards meeting our responsibility towards posterity.

When we look at the air pollution in southern Asia,

we cannot fail to admit that we urgently need to agree on

a forest convention. We must put an end to the ruthless

burning of forests to clear vast areas of land. Those who

deplete and destroy their own natural resources will make

us all lose out in the end. The eleventh hour is approaching.

Two weeks from now the decision on where to locate

the secretariat of the Convention to Combat Desertification

will be taken in Rome. We ask members to vote for Bonn.

Since the secretariat of the Framework Convention on

Climate Change already has its headquarters there, it makes

sense to combine the two.

The General Assembly is at a crossroads. Either we

solve our reform problems now and come out of our

introspective shell, or the United Nations will lose

political standing — that is what would happen. All

regional organizations, industrial, developing and

non-aligned countries have a joint responsibility for

implementing the reforms we have been talking about for

so long. This applies to all areas of United Nations

activity: economic and social, Security Council and

finance.

The Secretary-General has submitted a bold package

of reforms. Even though we do not agree with every

detail, we support the package as a whole. I appeal to all

Member States: let us not talk it to shreds, but make

quick decisions so that the necessary measures can be put

into effect. The United Nations has to be streamlined in

order to increase its efficiency. Whatever savings are

made through reform should be used for developments-

assistance purposes.

The Security Council must reflect today’s political

realities, one of which is the greater status of Africa,

Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. The debate on

this matter should not be artificially prolonged. This the

most important body of the United Nations, and it cannot

credibly and effectively perform its role as the guardian

of peace in the twenty-first century if its composition

remains basically as it was in 1945.

It is gratifying to note that a large number of States

regard the reunited Germany as a suitable candidate for a

permanent seat on the Security Council. If elected, we

will be able to make a good contribution, one that is in

keeping with the spirit of the Charter.

Two years ago, on the Organization’s fiftieth

birthday, we solemnly pledged to hand on to the next

millennium a United Nations equipped and funded for its

task. That promise has to be kept, and it has to be kept by

all. This means, first and foremost, paying our

contributions in full and on time, because without

finances this Organization is a powerless one. The

European Union has submitted its proposal for changing

the scale of assessments, the purpose of which is to

ensure a fair distribution of burdens.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights reads,

“All human beings are born free and

equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed

15

with reason and conscience and should act

towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

This vision must be sustained: the vision of a world in

which it is not the law of the strongest, but the strength of

the law which prevails; a world in which both the strong

and the weak feel at home; a world fit to live in which we

can safely leave to our children and to our grandchildren.