Indonesia, 1996

It is with great pleasure that

I extend my delegation’s heartfelt congratulations to you,

Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General

Assembly at its fifty-first session. We are deeply gratified

to see an eminent representative of a brotherly neighbouring

country and fellow member of the Association of South-

East Asian Nations (ASEAN) preside over our sessions.

Your election to this high office is also a well-deserved

recognition of your personal qualities and professional

accomplishments, as well as of the role and stature of

Malaysia in regional and global affairs.

May I also extend our felicitations to your

predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral of Portugal, for

so ably presiding over the historic fiftieth session.

Let me avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute

to Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali for his many

accomplishments, his untiring efforts in the cause of peace

and development and the sagacity with which he is steering

the Organization during these challenging times.

During the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary

of the United Nations last year, we noted a resurgence of

hope and optimism in the international community as we

reviewed the achievements of the world Organization, made

in spite of the many constraints with which it has been

saddled. We renewed our determination to strengthen the

United Nations and rededicated ourselves to the vision of

world peace that inspired its founding, as well as to the

ideals and principles enshrined in its Charter. That act of

rededication was timely and necessary. For, since the

demise of the cold war, the world has been in the grip of

massive changes that have given rise to new challenges

and contradictory trends in international relations. At the

same time, new vistas have emerged and a deepening

sense of interdependence has prompted nations to devise

more realistic and more mutually beneficial patterns of

cooperation.

Yet, while these developments have revived

expectations of a more peaceful and secure world, the

acute reality is that our planet is still far from being a

peaceful place. Violent conflicts continue to embroil many

regions of the globe. Nation States and international

institutions are frantically struggling to adjust to

drastically changed and changing political and economic

circumstances. Weapons of mass destruction still pose a

potent threat of worldwide catastrophe. In view of all

these, it is no wonder that, after a momentary resurgence

of hope, we are again being overtaken by a sense of

frustration and common vulnerability.

The primordial challenge of our time, therefore, is to

devise a more effective system of global governance in

order to manage the demands and the vicissitudes of

globalization and interdependence. As emphasized in a

statement recently issued by 16 Heads of State or

Government, including the President of Indonesia, nations

should rise from their immediate concerns, focus on their

common long-term interests and break new ground.

Constructive initiatives are needed, and multilateralism

has to be reasserted and strengthened.

Not even global cooperation, however, can meet the

needs and expectations of people without a stronger

United Nations to give coherence to such cooperation.

World governance, therefore, in order to be effective and

acceptable to all, must be fashioned with the United

Nations as its principal mechanism and source of

legitimacy. The revitalization of this international

institution through a comprehensive process of

restructuring and democratization of its major organs and

functions has therefore become imperative.

It is of pivotal importance that the General

Assembly, the highest deliberative and decision-making

organ within the United Nations system, should function

effectively. Indeed, strengthening the role of the General

Assembly is a basic premise of the current process of

United Nations reform and revitalization.

9

Just as crucial is the reform of the Security Council so

as to allow it to reflect contemporary realities and to

accommodate the interests and concerns of developing

countries, which comprise the overwhelming majority of the

Organization. It is an anachronism and a gross anomaly that

Europe is overrepresented, Asia underrepresented and

Africa and Latin America not represented at all on the

Council’s roster of permanent members. In our view, new

permanent members should be chosen on the basis not only

of equitable geographic representation, but also of such

criteria as political, economic and demographic weight,

their capability and proven track record of contributing to

the promotion of peace, security and development, both

regionally and globally, and their commitment to assuming

responsibilities inherent to permanent membership.

The Economic and Social Council is now being

revitalized so that it will have a more dynamic relationship

with the General Assembly and other United Nations

bodies. Yet, regrettably, it is still unable effectively to fulfil

its crucial role, notably in helping United Nations Members

adjust to the complex demands of globalization. The

reforms and adjustments that the Economic and Social

Council is undergoing should be further strengthened to

enhance its cooperation not only with other United Nations

bodies but also with such important international agencies

as the Bretton Woods institutions.

All these efforts to revitalize, reform and democratize

the United Nations, however, will come to naught if in the

end the United Nations is paralysed by financial insolvency.

If the current financial plight of the United Nations

continues — and it will continue as long as certain major

Member States refuse to remit their legally-obligated

contributions — there is a real danger that peacekeeping

operations will collapse and many endeavours to maintain

peace and security will be compromised. The very

functioning of the United Nations itself could be severely

undermined and the purposes of the reform process

seriously jeopardized. No organization can be reformed by

starving it. Ironically, the countries that are pressing the

hardest for cutbacks and reforms have themselves refused

to finance the new austerity budget. For more than five

decades the United Nations and related institutions have

been engaged in an immense array of activities that touch

every aspect of people’s lives all over the world. If those

vital statistics, too, must be terminated because of the

Organization’s insolvency, that would constitute an

enormous human tragedy.

Nuclear arsenals of enormously destructive power

continue to pose a threat to all life on Earth. We believe

that the time has come for the Conference on

Disarmament to establish a special committee for

negotiations on a programme of nuclear disarmament and

the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons within a

definite time-frame. In this regard, it is my hope that the

recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of

Justice on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear

weapons will serve as a catalyst towards this end.

The 10 countries of South-East Asia recently made

a substantive contribution to the cause of nuclear

disarmament. During the historic Bangkok summit of the

Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the

seven ASEAN leaders, together with the leaders of Laos,

Cambodia and Myanmar, signed the Treaty on the South-

East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. ASEAN is now

working for the Treaty’s early entry into force. We hope

that the nuclear Powers will soon endorse the Treaty by

acceding to its Protocol. Thus, with the conclusion of

Treaties for nuclear-weapon-free zones in South-East Asia

and Africa, in addition to the Antarctic, Rarotonga and

Tlatelolco Treaties, a large segment of the southern

hemisphere should become free of the nuclear menace. As

for chemical weapons, I am pleased to inform the General

Assembly that Indonesia is now at the final stage of the

process of ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Another positive development was the signing a few

days ago of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

(CTBT) after two and a half years of arduous negotiations

in the Conference on Disarmament. Indeed, for the past

three decades, the international community unceasingly

stressed the need for such a treaty in an endeavour to

stem the horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear

weapons. The Treaty outlaws nuclear-test explosions by

all States in all environments for all time, ensures that the

ban is effective and verifiable and provides new ground

for the realization of the objectives set by the 1995

Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Having become a reality through broad

compromises, however, the Treaty is still a far cry from

the CTBT long-envisioned by the international

community. It still allows the most sophisticated form of

nuclear-weapon testing: simulation. In a strict sense,

therefore, it is not truly comprehensive, nor does it

directly address the issue of nuclear disarmament. But it

does limit the nuclear-arms race by making it more

difficult for countries to develop or improve their

arsenals. Moreover, humankind cannot afford to dispense

with the CTBT, imperfect as it may be. Our collective

10

experience in the disarmament endeavour has been that, if

we pass over an existing opportunity in favour of a better

one that is yet to be, we suffer a costly delay and possibly

an irretrievable setback. Having signed the Treaty on that

basis, Indonesia fervently hopes that it will eventually be

supported by the entire membership and thereby become an

effective instrument to enable us to move towards the total

elimination of nuclear weapons.

Focal points of conflict still persist in many parts of

the globe. In the Middle East, the peace process is on the

verge of collapse as a highly volatile and explosive

situation in the Israeli-occupied Arab territories threatens

once more to engulf the region in all-too-familiar violence

and bloodshed, which we had hoped had become part of the

past. Israel’s provocative action of opening a new entrance

to the tunnel along the Western Wall of the Al-Aqsa

Mosque has triggered a violent confrontation, resulting in

death and injuries to scores of civilians. Further aggravating

the situation is the unprecedented armed clash between the

Israeli army and the Palestinian police. These are but the

latest manifestations of a rapid deterioration of the situation

due to Israel’s reneging on its previous commitments and

its blatant backtracking on its obligations under the 1993

Declaration of Principles and subsequent agreements.

Israel must be prevailed upon to honour the

Declaration of Principles and its subsequent agreements and

to resume negotiations in earnest on the remaining issues

and the final status of the occupied territories, including

Jerusalem. Once again, we emphasize that progress on the

Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese tracks of the

negotiations, attended by unconditional withdrawal of Israel

from the Syrian Golan Heights and southern Lebanon,

constitutes a conditio sine qua non for comprehensive and

lasting peace in the region.

The recent elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, made

possible by the cessation of hostilities as a result of the

Dayton and Paris peace Agreements, have brought the

country nearer to reconciliation and paved the way for the

creation of durable national institutions.

However, we are concerned that, especially in the

Serb-held areas, the results of the election may lead to the

legitimizing of ethnic separation. It is therefore incumbent

upon the international community to ensure the unity and

territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a

multicultural, multi-ethnic and multireligious society. For

the peace Agreement to be implementable, obstructions to

freedom of movement must be removed and refugees

allowed freely to return to their homes. Bosnian Serb

leaders must yield their illicit control over segments of

the population and territory of the country. The parties to

the peace Agreement must ensure that those indicted by

the International Tribunal are brought to justice.

In the Gulf region, we have recently witnessed

unilateral military action by extraregional Powers

interfering with the internal affairs of a Member State of

the United Nations. My delegation wishes to reiterate its

firm commitment to the sovereignty and territorial

integrity of States, in this case Iraq. Actions that are

inconsistent with these basic norms and principles of

inter-State relations, which are enshrined in the United

Nations Charter, are clearly unacceptable. I should also

like to seize this occasion to urge Iraq to comply fully

with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Earlier this month, almost a quarter of a century of

conflict in the southern Philippines came to a peaceful

end with the signing of a peace agreement between the

Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the

Moro National Liberation Front, with Indonesia serving

as facilitator on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic

Conference Ministerial Committee of the Six. This

positive development, which will bring peace and

prosperity to the southern Philippines, also constitutes

another important step towards the realization of a

politically stable, socially cohesive and economically

progressive South-East Asia that is increasingly able to

deal with its own problems in its own way.

We are now living in an era of globalization and

interdependence, an era replete with challenges but also

full of promise. How it came about is no mystery. It had

been creeping up on us for quite some time, the

consequence of rapid advances in science and technology,

particularly in communications and transport. The end of

the cold war and the dismantling of the barriers of bloc

politics and ideological contention unleashed the full force

of globalization. Since then, global trade and production

have been boosted to new heights while goods, people

and capital are moving from one country to another more

freely than ever. Globalization has thus raised the hopes

of humankind with visions of a new world of

opportunities and more equitable prosperity.

These hopes are not without foundation. In a global

economy that is gradually recovering from recession, the

developed countries, according to the 1996 Economic and

Social Survey, have shown average gross-national-product

growth rates of two per cent. The developing countries

have registered a significant 6 per cent growth while the

economic dynamos of East and South-East Asia have been

credited with a stunning 8 per cent growth. These are the

trade-driven economies that have benefited most from

globalization.

Yet, the apprehensions about globalization are equally

justified. In an external environment over which developing

countries have very little control, globalization could widen

the prosperity gap between the developed and the

developing countries. The fact that globalization can also

lead to disaster was demonstrated not too long ago when

the global operations of financial markets led to instability

and volatility that sent shock waves through the monetary

systems of developing countries. In their efforts to integrate

themselves into the global economy, many developing

countries have found it necessary to make structural

adjustments that too often entail exorbitant social and

human costs. Moreover, globalization has not mitigated and

may have, on the contrary, exacerbated the inequities and

imbalances in international economic relations. Bereft of a

favourable external environment for their national

development efforts, many developing countries continue to

languish in poverty, backwardness, stagnation and even

negative economic growth. Every year, 13 to 18 million

people, mostly children in developing countries, die from

hunger and poverty-related causes. Meanwhile, the

developing countries remain marginalized from the

international decision-making processes that would fashion

global solutions to the global economic problems that afflict

them.

The poignant experience of the past three and a half

decades teaches us that these problems cannot be solved

through palliatives and piecemeal reforms. Since the major

problems of development are global in nature, they can

only be effectively dealt with through a new global

partnership for development involving all countries, of both

the developed North and the developing South, on the basis

of mutual interest and equitable sharing of benefits and

responsibility.

It has been more than two years since the successful

conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade

negotiations, but the promise of an equitable, transparent

and rule-based multilateral trading system, as embodied in

the World Trade Organization (WTO), has yet to be

realized. Moreover, we are alarmed at the tendency of some

developed countries to resort to a new form of

protectionism in the guise of linking labour standards and

other social and environmental concerns to trade. Such

efforts will not only harm the developing countries, but will

also ultimately debilitate the WTO itself. We therefore call

upon all trading partners to refrain from overloading the

agenda of the first Ministerial Meeting of the WTO in

Singapore this coming December with issues extraneous

to trade. Let us together nurture the WTO as the guardian

of a predictable, non-discriminatory multilateral trading

system and the guarantor of the rights of the weaker

trading partner against unilateral and arbitrary actions by

the strong.

In this context, we share the concern expressed by

the international community at the practice of some

countries of promulgating national laws with

extraterritorial application that adversely impact on the

legitimate interests of other countries. We cannot accept

the imposition of the law of the strong in place of

dialogue and negotiation. No one country, no matter how

powerful, should be allowed unilaterally to regulate the

lives of other sovereign countries.

The biggest single deterrent to development in many

of the world’s poorest countries is the crushing effect of

their debt burdens. Indonesia has long advocated a set of

principles for managing the debt problem, calling for a

“once-and-for-all” settlement of the debt problems of

developing countries, including multilateral debts, as well

as the cancellation of the debts of the most severely

affected, low-income developing countries. In this context,

we welcome and support the joint proposal of the World

Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which

offers effective alternatives for reducing the overall debt

burdens of heavily indebted poor countries to sustainable

levels. While this initiative could be further refined, it is

Indonesia’s fervent hope that, at the forthcoming meetings

of the World Bank and the IMF, this proposal will finally

receive the support that it needs and deserves from the

developed countries. In this context, I am encouraged by

the developments at the IMF meetings in Washington

today.

Social development and social justice remain elusive

dreams for millions of impoverished people throughout

the world. Indonesia shares that dream and abides by the

commitments it assumed at the World Summit for Social

Development in Copenhagen and the Fourth World

Conference on Women in Beijing, both of which were

held last year. We have indeed dedicated ...

We have, indeed, dedicated ourselves to the

proposition that people should not only be the

12

beneficiaries of development but should also be given every

opportunity to become the authors of their own

development. At the same time we should address, through

concrete and concerted international action, the problem of

the global trade in illicit drugs and other forms of

transnational crime. Above all, we must continue to address

the problems of poverty and underdevelopment, and we

must commit ourselves fully to genuine partnership.

This century that is about to end will perhaps be

remembered for both the cruelty of its wars and the

tremendous achievements that it has seen in science and

technology — although it is not for these achievements that

we should be proud of it. To my mind, what makes this

century special is the fact that during this time the human

race truly began to nurture the idea that poverty is not an

inevitable part of the human condition, but that it can be

conquered and wiped off the face of the Earth. We have the

natural resources and the mental and organizational capacity

to succeed at that task. The question has always been

whether we have the political will to do it, and whether we

are concerned and enlightened enough to form an equitable

global partnership for development — for a concerted

struggle against poverty that will give a deeper and brighter

meaning to globalization and interdependence. The answer,

I believe, is largely in the hands of the General Assembly.