Indonesia, 1999

On behalf of the Indonesian

delegation, I should first like to congratulate my colleague

and good friend Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Foreign Minister of

Namibia, on his election as President of the General

Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. We are confident that

under his leadership we will achieve substantial progress in

our work.

To his predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti, I convey our

sincere appreciation for his able guidance of our work

during the last session.

I join other members in paying a tribute to our

Secretary-General for his untiring pursuit of the objectives

of the United Nations Charter.

On behalf of the Government and people of Indonesia,

I extend a warm welcome to Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga on

their accession to membership of the United Nations. My

delegation looks forward to working closely with them.

Every year at this time, for more than a decade now,

I have tried from this rostrum to present Indonesia's views

on the state of world affairs and international relations.

Today, I could deliver last year's statement, or even that of

three years ago, and it would not make much difference

because there really has been no significant change.

It is true that there are always a number of positive

developments. This year they include the Sharm el-Sheikh

Memorandum signed by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat

and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, which raises our

hopes for the resumption of the derailed Middle East peace

process. They include also the Lomé Peace Agreement on

Sierra Leone; the Framework Agreement on the conflict

between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Ceasefire Agreement on

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, some progress in

the rehabilitation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the

resolution of the stalemate over the Lockerbie incident.

Closer to home, there have been the signing of the 5 May

1999 Agreements reached in New York and the

implementation of the historic popular consultation in

East Timor which — although, most unfortunately, its

aftermath was marred by violence — remains an

important, positive development. These are all

encouraging steps in a long journey towards just and

durable solutions.

In the economic field, investor confidence is

beginning to trickle back into the Asian economies

severely hit by the financial and economic crisis. This

return of confidence and the positive signs in the affected

economies — such as stability of currencies and lower

interest rates — could be the first firm indications of a

recovery. Recently the G-8 decided to ease the debt

burden of the poorest countries by expanding the Heavily

Indebted Poor Countries Debt Initiative. This will help the

poorest countries get back on the road of development.

But ours is still an essentially brutal world. In many

places, wanton violence and armed conflicts persist, often

bringing about humanitarian disaster. In spite of the

presence of a United Nations peacekeeping force, Serbs

and Albanian Kosovars are still shooting each other in

Kosovo. In Afghanistan, dialogue has been abandoned

and once more the warring factions have taken to the

battlefield. In South Asia, an uneasy ceasefire reigns over

the line of control between two neighbouring States with

nuclear-weapon capability. Meanwhile, in the backwaters

and slums of the developing world, in the ghettos of the

industrialized countries, hundreds of millions fight a

desperate war against poverty, ignorance and disease.

There has as yet been no fulfilment of a hope we all

share, a hope to which we have clung for nigh on a

century.

A hundred years ago, electricity was just beginning

to light up the cities of the world, the commercial

manufacture of horseless carriages had just begun and the

pioneers of air travel were taking off in crude flying

machines. But it was beyond question even then that

enormous power called science and technology had been

placed in the hands of humankind. It was clear even then

that the prudent use of such power could solve the

problem of poverty that for millenniums people accepted

and suffered as an inevitable part of the human condition.

Since then, unfortunately, that power has been used

instead to enlarge humankind's capacity to kill and

destroy. That terrible capacity was amply demonstrated in

two world wars that levelled cities and decimated

populations in Europe and Asia. In time of peace, science

34

and technology have made it possible for one part of

humanity to adopt an irresponsible lifestyle and patterns of

production and consumption that ravage the fragile ecology

of this planet while teeming millions, in the squalor of

poverty, driven by the pangs of hunger, are tearing their

environment apart in a desperate bid to survive.

Five decades ago, the human race teetered on the

brink of a nuclear holocaust, but we were able to postpone

the effective end of history because between us and the

precipice stood the one shining achievement of humanity in

a violent century, the United Nations. Founded in the wake

of the Second World War as a forum for maintaining

security, resolving conflicts and serving development, the

United Nations is, whatever its flaws, a masterpiece of

human reason.

It has not achieved its finest promise of global peace,

nor has it significantly curbed poverty. Still, it has managed

to save us from the horrors of yet another world war, one

fought with nuclear weapons. And together with its

specialized agencies and related institutions, it is carrying

out an immense array of activities in support of economic

development and social progress; these are touching every

aspect of people's lives all over the world, and thus at least

keep hopes alive.

But even the very instrument of our salvation is not

spared our recklessness: the United Nations has been

allowed to go bankrupt at a time when so much more is

demanded of it as the central mechanism and catalyst for

multilateral cooperation. Its organs should be working in

harmony and complementing one another: instead, we have

the spectacle of a Security Council — when not paralysed

by the veto of a permanent member — venturing to take

over the work of other United Nations organs in such fields

as human rights, democracy and humanitarian aid. The

unhappy truth is that the inequities, imbalances and

discrimination in international relations that the United

Nations was supposed to cure have infected its own vital

organs and processes.

This is true not only of the United Nations itself but

also of related multilateral institutions. This is why it has

been so difficult to reform, democratize and empower the

United Nations, and so difficult to make the membership of

the Security Council truly reflect the political, economic

and demographic realities of the world today.

Although the work of the Council is focused on

conflict situations that are mostly in the developing world,

developing countries are woefully under-represented on

the Council.

For the same reason, nuclear disarmament has

achieved no substantial progress in recent years. In fact,

the nuclear arms race has surged along as countries seek

to join and enjoy the dubious privileges of being nuclear-

weapon States. The world thus remains in danger of

nuclear self-destruction.

The same situation obtains in multilateral economic

forums. They, too, have become afflicted with the

inequities and imbalances they are meant to rectify. The

introduction of irrelevant social issues and undue

emphasis on unfettered markets in these forums have

brought about the neglect of core development issues,

such as international cooperation for development, the

need for non-commercial financial flows and the necessity

of differential treatment for developing countries.

Thus, the international agenda has been steered by

the desire of developed countries to open doors for their

foreign investments, private capital flows and exports.

This has led to the eclipse of development as a common

goal and a common responsibility of developed and

developing nations. It has engendered a tendency to forget

commitments reached at global conferences on

environment and development, social development,

population and development, women and development,

habitat and food.

Just over a decade ago, with the barriers of the cold

war broken down, science and technology unlocked the

awesome force of globalization. This blind force could

have served as the chief instrument of a united

humankind in a decisive assault against the global

problems of poverty and underdevelopment. We could

have enlisted it to empower people everywhere and thus

broaden participation in governance and productive

initiatives. We could have built a more equitable

partnership between the developed and the developing

world. But at best, the weaker economies were left to the

tender mercies of the market. At worst, globalization has

been used by the strong to press their advantage over the

weak, widening the chasm between rich and poor.

After all this, what can we say to sum up the

passing of 100 years? If progress means going to the

moon and exploring outer space; if it means the rapid

movement of money, goods and people from one

continent to another and the delegation of personal

initiative to clever machines, then we have made some

35

progress. But if it means the conquest of poverty, the

taming of the human penchant for conflict and violence,

and ensuring the long-term sustainability of human life, I

am afraid that we may be entering the new millennium not

really much better off than we were a century ago.

Our tragedy is not in our ignorance, but in the waste

of our wisdom. The truth is that we know the solutions to

our problems. We know what kind of global partnership it

would take to tackle the problems of poverty and

underdevelopment. We have spelled out the global

measures to initiate in order to prevent the irreversible

decay of our environment. And we are aware of what it

would take to move the disarmament agenda forward; what

kind of representation on the Security Council would make

it a true instrument of the whole international community.

But we do not make the necessary decisive moves

because these require change — profound and radical

change. There must be change not only in our methods, but

in the way we look at the world, the way we regard one

another and ourselves. That kind of change brings no

comfort and poses the deepest challenge to our faith and

our courage. Hence, we hesitate. The protracted debates in

this Assembly, in the Economic and Social Council, in the

Conference on Disarmament and in many other forums are

in reality just one long hesitation.

We in Indonesia know how difficult that kind of

change can be. In response to the Asian financial and

economic crisis, as well as to its social and political impact,

we have begun to reform our social, economic and political

institutions. New laws are being passed, new ways are

being tried to give our people the widest opportunity to

participate in the making of decisions that affect their lives,

to level the economic playing fields and to earn the

confidence of our foreign partners.

The Government has taken a long, hard look at itself

and its responsibilities today. In the case of East Timor, our

responsibility has changed. Twenty-four years ago, it was

our responsibility to accept the Territory as a province of

our Republic in order to stop ongoing fratricidal carnage

after a disastrously bungled decolonization process; to

accommodate the desire of the majority of East Timorese

at that time to seek freedom and sanctuary through

integration with our Republic; and to contribute to the

security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region. We

accepted that responsibility and additional burden, although

we had never laid claim to that half-island, as it was not a

part of the Dutch East Indies out of which the Indonesian

nation evolved. Today our responsibility and our

commitment are to help make possible the fulfilment of

the newly expressed will of the majority of East Timorese

to seek a new destiny outside the Indonesian Republic.

We will abide by that responsibility and commitment and

at the same time ensure that the parting of ways will

proceed honourably, peacefully and amicably.

In this process of change, not only in East Timor but

also throughout our national life and in our relations with

our friends, we have not had an easy time. We have had

more than our share of setbacks, frustrations and

mistakes. In the depths of every disappointment, we have

had to summon the courage to persevere, to start all over

again whenever necessary, because there is no alternative

acceptable to our people. We do pray for the courage to

change, but not for ourselves alone.

For the solutions to the global problems of our time

demand a fortitude on the part of nations that is strong

enough to break the doubts, the prejudices, the sophistry

and the apathy that have hardened with the passing of

decades. That means the courage to take action where we

have only paid lip-service. It also means the courage to

recognize that many of our problems are complex and

demand more creativity from us than we have so far

demonstrated.

For instance, we fully agree that massive and

systematic violations of human rights, wherever they take

place, should not be tolerated or condoned. But we cannot

agree that this problem can be solved only by sacrificing

the principle of national sovereignty and sovereign

equality among nations. There must be a solution that

does not threaten to demolish a principle on which the

United Nations itself was founded. Let us have the

intellectual courage to look for that solution and be

willing to make any sacrifice to attain it, except the

sacrifice of our principles.

If many of us have grown cynical, I believe that it

is not out of arrogance, but out of fear of the

consequences of change, the loss of some privilege or

advantage over another, or out of fear of futility and

failure. We can overcome these fears because they are but

shadows on the wall; they have no substance. There will

be failures and there will be setbacks, but if what we set

out to do is worthwhile, and nothing is more worthwhile

than the perpetuation of humankind, we will succeed.

Let us now all act in consonance with our

commitments to the United Nations Charter; to the Treaty

on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); to

36

Agenda 21; to the Uruguay Round and the World Trade

Organization (WTO); to all agreements on international

financial flows for development; on cooperation on human

rights; on the eradication of all forms of discrimination. We

cannot bring all of these to fruition in a single day, and

some of them not even in a full decade, but if we all do

that today, it will be enough to start with.

If we keep building on that to achieve something

significant, we engender encouragement. We add to the

fund of courage that the world needs to become a better

one. And that fund of courage is all it will take for

humanity to make an auspicious entry into the next

millennium.