Liberia, 2001

I am honoured to

participate in this historic session on behalf of His

Excellency Dr. Charles Ghankay Taylor, President of

the Republic of Liberia, and to share with the

Assembly his contribution to this debate.

I am pleased to congratulate the President on his

on your election as President of the fifty-sixth General

Assembly. We wish to assure His Excellency of the full

cooperation of the Liberian delegation.

May I also take this opportunity to acknowledge

the outgoing President, Mr. Harri Holkeri of Finland,

for the very able manner in which he conducted the

fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly.

By the same token, I would like to congratulate

our distinguished Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan,

on his re-election as Secretary-General and for the

distinguished recognition he received in being awarded

the Nobel Peace Prize, which, without a doubt, is a

result of his vision, commitment and the efficient

manner in which he has led and continues to lead our

organization.

On 11 September 2001, not very far from this

place, which is dedicated to the maintenance of

international peace and security, the world was

confronted with a kind of terrorism that now renders all

of us vulnerable. This terrorism is not confined to any

one group of people, nor is it confined to any one

geographical location, or to any particular ethnic or

religious group. Because of its transnational nature, the

world must come together and, in a coordinated and

collective manner, construct new models in answer to

this scourge. We must act without delay, and without

unnecessary debate. We must act with determination

and urgency.

25

The problem of terrorism today requires that our

Organization, the United Nations, should take the lead

in coordinating and consolidating international efforts

to tackle the new challenges that it raises. The United

Nations should serve as a catalyst for these efforts, and

not another bureaucratic web of inaction and prolonged

debate. The United Nations — the institution that

humanity has charged with the responsibility for global

peace and security — is today the subject of terrorist

threats. We must match our words with deeds; we must

respond to this scourge.

My Government reiterates its condemnation, in

the strongest terms, of the barbaric and heinous acts of

terrorism perpetrated against the United States, leading

to unimaginable and enormous loss of lives and

massive destruction in New York, Washington, D.C.,

and Pennsylvania. My Government has made concrete

offers to the United States Government and the

international coalition, and has taken strong measures

in keeping with Security Council resolution 1373

(2001).

I wish now to proceed to issue of reform of the

United Nations. I believe, like the rest of you, that

reform implies change towards a more positive

condition. And I presume that when we speak of the

United Nations, we speak of nations that have come

together with a common interest to achieve a common

objective. In essence, when we speak of reform, we

must accept that the conditions under which our

nations have come together — with a common interest

to achieve a common objective — are no longer

palatable and require change. The questions that many

of us continue to debate regard what changes we want,

and how to achieve those changes.

However, I must interject a fundamental question

as to whether the conditions, practices and traditions

exist for a positive change, assuming we mean positive

for the collective good. In bringing about any positive

change for the collective good, a level playing field

must exist, in which the interest of the whole will

freely manifest itself in the change. A level playing

field should show the following characteristics:

transparency; freedom; fairness; and democratic

practices.

In terms of transparency, we must assume a

condition in which the operation of and decision-

making process within the United Nations and its

specialized agencies are open. The Security Council

should not deliberate in secrecy, as was the case during

the pre-World War II years, in which secret diplomacy

and alliance formations characterized the period.

In terms of freedom, we must assume that

Members of the United Nations can take decisions in

the absence of threats, coercion, fear and retribution.

In terms of fairness, we must assume that

decisions cannot be taken in contradiction to universal

moral imperatives, or to the detriment of the statehood

of a Member. Sanctions with adverse socio-economic

and humanitarian consequences should not constitute

political tools available to a few Members.

In terms of democratic practices, we must assume

that decision-making will be reflective of the will of

the majority and not of a few; that all Members will

have an equal say and equal participation.

Unfortunately, the contrary of these preconditions

constitutes the status quo today with regard to the

functioning of the United Nations. How can we assume

the possibility of reform in the absence of a level

playing field?

Reform can be meaningful only in the context of

the alteration of the spirit of the Charter. That, as I

have suggested, would assume the presence of a level

playing field. However, we must all admit that the

concept of reform has gained currency only because of

an attempt to admit emerging Powers into the elite

group of permanent members of the Security Council.

Such an attempt has provoked an outcry against the

privilege of the few, and the challenge is how to admit

these emerging Powers without disrupting the existing

allocation of privilege. Privilege is never surrendered.

It is shared only when the political structures compel

inclusion.

Reform will not occur within the United Nations

until structural changes take place in the distribution of

power and more non-traditional Powers emerge. It

would therefore be an exercise in futility to expect

concrete reforms in the United Nations without

structural changes. And what we assume to be reform

is essentially an adjustment occasioned by structural

pressures. This adjustment would be limited to

accommodating the newly emerging Powers, while

appeasing the less powerful States through

participation without power. The conferral of the right

26

of veto will mark this distinction. A permanent seat

will no longer be synonymous with the right of veto.

For the less powerful, the struggle will not be

about power, but participation by affiliation, a sort of

status club. Prestige is a preoccupation of the national

character, which, despite its superficiality, will be

pursued by States seeking to distinguish themselves

from the crowd. Hence, the focus of the less powerful

will be to join the club, and not the pursuit of the more

important goal of integration, which is the only answer

for the conversion of the less powerful into emerging

Powers that would compel adjustment through

structural pressures. Debate is not the mechanism of

change.

Individual less powerful States can hope to

emerge as powerful States only through a process of

integration within regional groupings where power in

its entire composite is integrated into a common power

capability. This would require integration of economic,

military, technological, human, political and social

resources into an integrated regional capacity. Only

when this objective is achieved will the structure of the

international political system yield to adjustment.

Africa cannot, with all of its potential, continue to

stand by and accept being condemned to perpetually

occupy the position of the least developed continent.

The African culture, heritage and value systems stand

the risk of being lost in the sea of normative ethics

based on Western values. Africa should not miss the

opportunity of the new African Union to achieve

meaningful integration and cooperation within the

context of building a powerful African capability that

will allow Africans a say in our common world. This

will require a new pragmatism, commitment, vision,

cooperation and sacrifice on the part of African

leaders. The United Nations can work for Africa; we

should learn from the successes of the power brokers

who have made the United Nations an important

instrument of their foreign policy.

Liberia is a small country in West Africa that

suffered seven years of civil war from 1990 to 1997.

During the years of the civil war most institutions were

destroyed, and a major brain drain resulted, as many

Liberian professionals travelled abroad to better

conditions. The war also resulted in the destruction of

basic infrastructure, including power-generating plants,

water plants, schools, hospitals, airports, bridges and

private property. Over 666,000 Liberians ended up as

refugees and over a million as internally displaced

persons. More alarming was the failure of the

international community to assist in the reintegration of

over 60,000 former combatants who remained

unemployed and idle.

In 1997 a constitutionally elected Government

was inaugurated facing the challenges of restoring a

nation that had been destroyed by war. Four years later,

the infant Government still faces an unsympathetic

international community; it has received no official

development assistance, and donor assistance for

United Nations agencies and the non-governmental

organizations operating in Liberia has declined over the

past four years. The current unemployment rate is 85

per cent, while 80 per cent of the population lives

below the poverty line. According to the United

Nations Children’s Fund, the illiteracy rate is estimated

at 80 per cent. Half of all school-age children do not

attend school. Infant mortality stands at 134 out of

1,000 live births.

Disability prevalence in the population is 16.4 per

cent, of which 12.7 per cent is war-related. The World

Health Organization rate for a post-war country is

between 7 per cent and 10 per cent. The prevailing

causes of disabilities are alarming, with 91.5 per cent

acquired due to trauma and diseases. About 21 per cent

of urban dwellers and 80 per cent of rural dwellers

have no access to safe drinking water. Access to

adequate sanitation is unavailable to approximately 70

per cent of the population. An estimated 8 per cent of

the population is reportedly infected with HIV.

Since 1999, dissidents have waged war in Lofa

County against the constitutionally elected Government

in Liberia, further exacerbating the already vulnerable

humanitarian situation in the country. Death,

destruction, displacement of populations and an

increase in Liberian refugees have contributed to what

the United Nations agencies call a humanitarian crisis

in Liberia.

The Liberian Government’s capacity to defend its

territorial integrity has been impaired by a United

Nations arms embargo, despite the right to self-

defence, as expressed in Article 51 of the United

Nations Charter. The Security Council has taken no

measures to prevent the ongoing killing of innocent

Liberians, especially women and children, who are the

targets of atrocities committed in Lofa county by armed

dissidents.

27

This country, a victim of war, poverty and

disease, is today also the victim of a regime of punitive

sanctions imposed by the Security Council in its

resolution 1343 (2001). The representative of the

United Nations Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs told the Security Council on 5

November 2001 that the humanitarian situation in

Liberia today is “abysmal”. (S/PV.4405, p. 32) Since

the imposition of sanctions by the Security Council,

and despite the claim by the Council that the sanctions

would not have any adverse effects on ordinary people,

socio-economic indicators show that the living

conditions of the Liberian people have declined

dramatically. Available statistics show a direct

correlation between the imposition of sanctions and the

decline in the living standards of the Liberian people.

The Security Council has imposed a global travel

ban on more than 100 Liberians, without any

rationalization. My Government has requested the

Security Council to make known its criteria for the

inclusion of persons subject to the travel ban. This

minimal element of transparency and justice has been

denied the Liberian Government. Among those

subjected to the travel ban are the sick, invalids,

businessmen, wives and ex-wives. What a frightening,

alarming and dangerous precedent the Security Council

has set. Liberia speaks not for itself, as it has already

been victimized, but for the rest of you here, who may

find similar treatment meted out against yourselves

tomorrow.

I await impatiently for a tomorrow when there

will be redress from the injustice my country suffers,

when all of you here will no longer be obliged to

enforce unjust sanctions. Today, I am impatient to hear

the General Assembly voice its opposition to the

suffering imposed upon Liberian children, women and

elderly persons. I impatiently wait for each and every

member of the Security Council to respect the human

rights of my people. I am impatient for the day when

the United Nations will no longer be an instrument that

is used to cause the suffering of innocent people. The

Government of Liberia calls upon the Security Council

to lift all sanctions imposed upon it and to bring to an

end the suffering of the Liberian people.

At the twenty-sixth session of the United Nations

General Assembly, in 1971, a major decision was taken

that to date has had far reaching implications. On 25

October of that year, after two decades of debate, by

virtue of General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI)

adopted by a vote of 76 in favour, 36 against and 17

abstentions) the Republic of China was expelled from

the world body. By that decision, a founding Member

and its population — at that time of 14 million

people — were effectively prevented from associating

with the rest of the world. Nothing in the Charter

justified such a decision, yet a precedent was set that is

still unsurpassed. Nevertheless, it is the conviction of

the Liberian Government that the now 23 million

peace-loving people of the Republic of China should be

allowed representation and participation in our world

body. It is also the hope of the Liberian people that the

great Chinese people will one day be peacefully

reunited under the principles of democracy and human

rights.

In conclusion, permit me to allay the anxieties of

all those who are preoccupied with the existing

situation between the members of the Mano River

Union. The leaders of the three Mano River Union

States have resolved to put all of their differences aside

and not to return to the destructive process of

apportioning blame. We are a single people bound by

blood, culture and language. We are bound by a

common destiny that links us inextricably to one

another and is capable of withstanding ephemeral

differences. I wholly agree with President Conté of

Guinea when he described our quarrel as a family

matter. Our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters,

and mothers and fathers have commenced the process

of reconciliation and confidence-building in Freetown,

Conakry and Monrovia. So far, a number of significant

decisions have been taken at the level of ministers for

foreign affairs and the Joint Security Committee. We

ask for the Assembly’s support in that process.

I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the

true fraternal solidarity and support of the Economic

Community of West African States, which has stood

the test of all of our challenges and difficulties and

remains focused on the objective of peace. We too will

remain focused on the objective of peace.