Guyana, 2000

Still fresh in our minds is

the strong plea made by the leaders of the world at

their historic meeting on the eve of this fifty-fifth

Assembly for a universal recommitment to

multilateralism and to the purposes and principles of

the United Nations. Their Declaration at the Summit's

end was unanimous and unambiguous. Humanity's

future lies in the hands of this Organization and its

ability to create a new global order for the promotion

of peace and development. It is a conclusion which the

Assembly must take to heart if it is to fulfil this urgent

mandate.

I am confident that our task will be facilitated by

our President's skilful direction. Coming from Finland,

a country that has been forged by history on the anvil

of political, economic and social endurance, he will

undoubtedly bring to bear on our deliberations a sense

of purpose and urgency. In congratulating him on his

election, Guyana pledges a readiness to cooperate to

make this Assembly abundantly successful.

My delegation also offers its appreciation and

thanks to His Excellency Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab for the

able leadership he provided the fifty-fourth General

Assembly.

Our gratitude is also due to Secretary-General

Kofi Annan, who continues to manage the Organization

with a sure and steady hand. The report that he

submitted to the Assembly, “We the peoples — the role

of the United Nations in the twenty-first century”,

amply addresses the many important challenges that lie

ahead of us. It is well worth our study to see what

measures the Assembly can take to promote global

peace and development through strengthening of the

Organization.

As the report demonstrates, a high level of

tension now exists in the governance of the global

economy. While it has been generally acknowledged

that markets offer opportunities for growth and

development, there is still the caveat against excessive

reliance on them. As many developing countries have

discovered, the market is often blind to their particular

circumstances and needs. Their concerns have raised

serious questions about the fairness of the trading

system, leading to much public protest, as was

dramatically expressed in Seattle and almost every city

where the Bretton Woods institutions and the World

Trade Organization (WTO) have tried to hold meetings.

The message is clear: the international

community must find a consensus on ways and means

to ensure more democratic governance in international

affairs so that the developing countries can have a

greater say in shaping their own future.

The gap between the richest and poorest countries

has widened so dramatically during recent years that

strong and urgent action must be taken to avoid a major

human disaster. For most developing countries such as

my own, a scarcity of financial and human resources

places serious constraints on the policy options they

are able to exercise. Despite the fact that many have

embraced market-based reforms and democratic

governance, they have had limited success in

improving the socio-economic conditions of their

people.

Their efforts to undertake important reforms and

to lift themselves up by their boot-straps have been

rewarded by a denial of much-needed assistance to

sustain the progress achieved. The hostile international

environment in which they find themselves not only

21

frustrates their economic and social development but

also renders the strengthening of the democratic

process extremely difficult.

Thus, while globalization has benefited strong

economies, it has weakened many developing countries

and forced them into the backwaters of development.

Severe economic and social dislocation has followed in

many cases, accentuating the particular vulnerabilities

of small economies, many of which are often

dependent on a single agriculture crop for the

livelihood of their peoples. While the proponents of

economic liberalization contend that the market offers

“a level playing field”, they conveniently forget and

fail to realize that the players are not equally matched

and that the rules of the game are stacked in favour of

the strong. The weak can hardly compete and are

eventually marginalized. Indeed, it is a zero-sum game,

where both winners and losers are known in advance.

The majority of developing countries continue to

be crippled by weak infrastructure such as roads,

communications and other physical requirements and

the inadequacy of skilled labour to take advantage of

opportunities in the market. Moreover, they must face

not only high production costs but also low prices and

inadequate access to markets. Trade liberalization has

also led to a rapid growth in imports by developing

countries, while their own exports remain sluggish and

their trade deficit widens. In the process, Governments

lose much-needed revenues from duties and taxes,

which hitherto made an appreciable contribution to the

national budget.

Meanwhile, official development assistance has

fallen to its lowest since the target of 0.7 per cent of

Gross National Product (GNP) was established by the

United Nations in 1970. Only four countries —

Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden —

have reached the mark. On average, developed

countries contribute less than a third of this target

figure, with the richest countries contributing even less.

Assistance is now apparently seen by some as both

wasteful and wasted, a perception which may serve to

explain this rapid decline. Yet for many of the poor

developing countries, such assistance is indispensable

if they are to improve their economic performance. To

make matters worse, they find it difficult without the

requisite technology and human resource base to attract

foreign direct investment, which is increasingly

concentrated in a small number of emerging

economies.

The challenge facing the international community

and policy-makers in the new millennium, therefore, is

to redress these inequities in the global economy in a

comprehensive and sustainable manner so as to ensure

the smooth integration of developing countries, in

particular the smaller economies, into the globalizing

world economy. Developing countries are not asking

for charity — merely the opportunity to develop their

potential and to take their rightful place in the

international community. As they have said, they

recognize their primary responsibility for their own

development. They ask only for assistance in creating a

domestic environment that will enable them to

participate fairly in the global economy.

A helpful measure would be to integrate

transition periods into current economic models and

make provisions for targeted assistance to small

economies. Another would be to provide significant

debt relief and debt cancellation as necessary, together

with development assistance to boost the overall

productive capability of developing countries.

Developed countries could also assist in

promoting regional integration, as well as South-South

cooperation, to allow developing countries to benefit

from the many complementarities that they possess.

Equally indispensable is the provision of new and

additional resources through the establishment of a

global development fund that would help to bridge the

gap between the developed and developing worlds. An

action-oriented programme, somewhat along the lines

of the post-Second World War Marshall Plan, is

necessary to achieve meaningful progress.

Policies aimed merely at creating unsustainable

social safety nets are hardly lasting solutions. The root

causes of the social and endemic problems of the

developing countries, which ultimately lead to global

instability, must be addressed. To this end, we must

find a way to direct aid and investment into building

capital, both human and physical. We cannot speak

seriously of closing the digital divide in an

environment in which many Governments are

struggling to meet even the most basic needs of their

populations and where degraded infrastructure does not

support a “communications revolution”.

In this context, we have noted the Secretary-

General's initiative to forge a global compact between

the United Nations, the private sector and non-

governmental organizations in an effort to maximize

22

the development effort. Such a strategic alliance can

indeed enhance cooperation on a wide array of global

issues, including aid, trade and investment, and

protection of the environment as well as satisfy urgent

education, health and housing needs. To succeed,

however, such a compact must be based on mutual

understanding and respect through a clear definition of

the respective roles of the partners. There must be

common objectives and agendas, as well as a clear

definition of the roles of each partner.

Finally, the international community, and more

particularly the developed North, must recognize the

close link between freedom from want and freedom

from fear — between development, peace and stability.

At the national level, we know that good governance

must be practised to ensure that the population are

protected from all forms of oppression and allowed to

enjoy their inalienable human rights. Correspondingly,

at the international level, the principles of the Charter,

as well as the laws which we, as civilized nations, have

come to accept, must be respected to provide an

environment conducive to development.

In chapter IV of his report the Secretary-General

remarks:

“Economic globalization has largely eliminated

the benefits of territorial acquisition, while the

destructiveness of modern warfare has increased

its costs.” (A/54/2000, para. 192)

This lesson must be learned by States which, despite

their professed commitment to the Charter, often resort

to various forms of coercion in international relations.

The United Nations, and more particularly the Security

Council, should not — and, indeed, must not —

tolerate such actions. All disputes must be resolved

through peaceful means.

While many of the proposals made by the

Secretary-General in his report will undoubtedly help

to contain the threats to peace and development in the

twenty-first century, we rather fear that they will be

insufficient to meet our requirements if they are

pursued in a piecemeal fashion without a more

comprehensive and holistic framework. It is for this

reason that Guyana sought the inclusion on this year's

agenda of an item on promoting a new global human

order. Time does not allow me to provide the details of

this initiative. However, so that the concept may be

more fully understood and widely supported, I have

asked that, along with copies of my statement, an

explanatory memorandum outlining the aim of our

proposal be circulated. Very shortly we will also make

available a more extensive document that could serve

as the basis for discussion in plenary session. It is our

hope that out of this consideration will emerge a

resolution that expresses the determination of the

international community to find a consensus on the

way forward to securing global peace and

development.

The time is now opportune, I believe, for us to

summon up our collective political will to devise a

common and cogent strategy for managing the global

agenda in the twenty-first century. Should we fail to

heed this imperative, we will continue to plough the

sea and reap only disillusionment and despair. This

Millennium Assembly affords us a singular opportunity

to define the terms and conditions of a new global

partnership. Let us not waste it in futile debate, but,

rather, use it to give new hope to our peoples for a

better future.