Libya, 1997

Allow me, at the outset, to express to

Mr. Udovenko, on behalf of my country’s delegation, our

21

warm congratulations on his election to the presidency of

the General Assembly at this session. His election to that

high post is a tribute of the international community to his

friendly country and a reflection of the confidence of the

Members of the United Nations in his ability to shoulder

this heavy responsibility.

By the same token, we express our great appreciation

to his predecessor, Ambassador Razali Ismail, for the great

efficiency with which he conducted the affairs and

deliberations of the Assembly at its previous session.

Furthermore, I wish on this occasion to express my

country’s gratitude to Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the

unrelenting efforts he has made since his assumption of his

post to enhance the role, efficiency and effectiveness of the

United Nations.

Some people have thought that the end of the so-called

cold war would be conducive to the creation of favourable

conditions for equitable and healthy international relations

based on mutual respect and fruitful and constructive

cooperation among human communities. However, what the

Secretary-General has rightly described as a period of

“frenzy” has not taken long to lay such assumptions to rest

and wreak havoc in several regions of the world. This

frenzy is the product of the new unipolar system in which

one country sits alone on the top. This singularity has

emboldened that country to continue to spread its

hegemony, expand the area and scope of its aggression and

impose its conditions, concerned only with its own interests

and ignoring those of others. It has even fought against the

interests of its own allies. Those who have exposed these

trends and refused to pay homage and obeisance except to

God have been labelled outlaws.

The end of the so-called cold war deprived the world

of that balance of power which had, in the past, provided

a protective umbrella for all small, poor and weak

countries. It has even protected other countries as well. The

most important need on the international scene today is to

work seriously to establish any kind of international balance

to preserve the little that has remained of States’

independence, freedom of thought and action, and then to

reverse the negative effects of the period of frenzy, which

is still with us, although it has somewhat receded.

The United Nations has been manipulated by the only

super-Power, which sits alone at the top, against certain

peoples, States and even regions that have joined this

Organization in search of protection, security, peace and

cooperation. The United States of America has managed to

push the Security Council into adopting resolutions outside

its competence against whoever has said “no” to unilateral

hegemony and tyranny or defended the independence of

their countries and their ability to take free decisions and

have free choices. These resolutions adopted at the height

of the period of frenzy at the beginning of this

decade were falsely described as being consistent with

international legality, while in reality there was nothing

legal or international about them. They were adopted

through diktat and by the use of threats directed at the

capitals of the States concerned in order to ensure their

continued applicability.

Paragraphs 102 and 103 of the report of the

Secretary-General on the reform process (A/51/950)

clearly and unequivocally show that these resolutions not

only lack international legality but also that they should

be reviewed and rescinded.

Globalization which means only the imposition of

the interests, language, culture, values and customs of the

one and only Power at the top is not globalization. It is

merely a crowning of that Power as head of the entire

world. Proof of this can be found in the great

contradiction between words and deeds. Its leaders call

for the liberalization of international trade, then enact

legislation imposing one embargo after another on the

movement of goods and capital against those countries

and peoples that want to remain independent and free in

their decision-making. They punish, through their own

legislation, whoever in the world cooperates with it.

What was published today in The New York Times

regarding cooperation between a company located in a

State which is an ally of the United States, and Iran is the

clearest evidence of the truth of what we are stating.

They are the ones who dictate economic embargo

resolutions against countries and peoples and then

unilaterally follow up their implementation. Moreover, it

is these same quarters that work to disarm countries and

selectively destroy whatever weapons they have, while

allowing only themselves and their allies, to the exclusion

of everyone else, to manufacture, possess and acquire

armaments. The same quarters provide money, men,

technology, and know-how to a select group of countries

in order that they may establish and develop a military

industry capable of producing all types of conventional

weapons and even weapons of mass destruction, and if

necessary would send their armies and fleets to fight at

their sides.

22

They call for the protection of human rights while

refusing to acknowledge human rights for anybody but their

own people. This is the case in the denial of the right of the

two Libyan citizens to a fair and neutral trial.

It is the same country that calls for the combating of

terrorism and then goes on to label self-defence, the

defence of honour and resistance against foreign occupiers,

as terrorism. They call for democracy and then support and

finance those who oppose democracy, especially if those

who come to power are against the influence in their

country of the only super-Power.

These examples of the contradiction between words

and deeds, between propaganda and the executive policies

and legislative positions of the very same Power, clearly

show that the call for globalization is not intended for the

good of the world. In reality the world reaps nothing but a

name.

The African continent, which is considered the most

underdeveloped part of the world as we stand at the end of

the twentieth century, is not, in fact, responsible for its

backwardness. A brief review of Africa’s history and a

discerning look at its present state of affairs readily show

that all the problems, without exception, Africa faces —

whether they be problems of political instability in some of

its regions or economic underdevelopment in most, if not

all, its countries — are caused by those who colonized and

drew the political borders of the African countries.

Not one single African country has drawn its own

borders with its neighbours. It was the colonial countries

which did that, dividing tribes, clans and communities

among different countries and thus sowing the seeds of the

current social tensions in many parts of the continent at an

early time. This was a deliberate act carried out under the

infamous policy of “divide and rule”.

Not only did they draw the borders, but they also

looted the natural resources, which they now monopolize.

Any country that dares to free its resources is quickly

surrounded by embargoes. They use all the financial and

economic institutions, including the so-called international

institutions, in a manner that deprives these countries of any

choice but to surrender to their conditions or face the

consequences of confronting them. The responsibility for

what happened during the past epoch and for what

continues to occur in our African continent should be

shouldered by those who caused it in the first place.

The slogan “Africa should help itself”, though

seemingly innocent, is misleading, because it involves an

attempt at avoiding the responsibility for the

consequences of the acts of those who sowed the seeds of

all this in the not-so-distant past. This is still fresh in the

memory of current generations. Those who do care for

Africa do not impose conditions for assisting Africa.

Africa is ready to cooperate with those who are willing to

help, but cannot accept dealing with those who dictate to

it.

My country would like to endorse the position

outlined here in the General Assembly and at the Security

Council meeting devoted to Africa by President Robert

Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe and current Chairman of

the Organization of African Unity (OAU). This is the

position of all Africa and all Africans. From this rostrum,

my country salutes President Mugabe. We confirm what

he said: Africa does not ask for charity from anybody.

We urge those who seek permanent membership in

the Security Council to remember Africa all the time, and

not only when they need the votes of its countries in the

General Assembly to help them take over posts and seats

in various councils and committees. We urge them, and

others, to review the standards and criteria for their

relations with the African countries before it is too late.

Allow me to recall what one of Africa’s leaders said

15 years ago. His country used to export one ton of cocoa

in order to import one tractor. Now it has to export 12

tons of cocoa in order to import one tractor. This

astronomical increase in the price of manufactured goods

compared with the price of raw materials in the space of

15 years is a sufficient reply to all the questions raised

about the relationships of others with Africa in various

fields. This very example explains some of the causes of

the suffering in several African countries, at various

levels.

We would like to say here to both old and new

colonialists alike: Hands off Africa, then Africa will know

how to help itself.

The truth of what we have been saying all along

concerning the Palestinian question has been proved to

everybody. Everyone here has seen and heard about the

practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in Palestine

and the other occupied Arab territories, from the Golan to

southern Lebanon, or rather, all of Lebanon. The Security

Council held meetings to consider the situation in these

territories, but those meetings were aborted by the

23

American veto. The General Assembly held a special

session on the matter, and what was the result? Nothing.

This would explain what the region is facing these days,

and what is in gestation now is even more dangerous than

what is being witnessed today.

The Iraqi people are not only starving and dying; they

are suffering from something more serious than hunger and

more dangerous than death. It is known that some Iraqi

individuals have been forced to sell body parts, such as

kidneys, to feed their children for a little while. What kind

of international legality can justify the continued application

of sanctions that lead to such results? How can any claims

be accepted now from those who pay lip service to so-

called human rights, yet do not apply them except to serve

their political ends? How is it then possible to allow the

partition of Iraq and the violation of the inviolability of its

borders and its territory by foreigners and their armed

forces? It is the United Nations which is responsible for

this situation, since it created the conditions that led to this

situation and has provided the cover for what is happening

in Iraq. It is now the United Nations responsibility to

redress this situation to which it has given rise.

My country overlooks the Mediterranean, with a coast

that extends for about 2,000 kilometres. That is why we are

very keen on making the Mediterranean a lake of peace and

cooperation for its coastal States. However, this is made

impossible by the presence of foreign military bases and

foreign fleets that undermine the region’s stability and

represent a permanent source of danger. This presence has

been the cause of our continued concern, because we have

sacrificed half our population for our freedom. Three times

a year, we celebrate the anniversaries of the evacuation of

foreign troops from our country. Peace, stability and

cooperation in the Mediterranean will be possible only

when foreign military bases are eliminated, when foreign

fleets are withdrawn from its waters.

My country, like the rest of the developing world,

welcomes the international conventions aimed at the

prohibition and elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

We believe that this is in the interest of mankind as a

whole. However, the resumption of nuclear tests, under any

pretext, is a great source of disappointment because they

are a violation of the international conventions concluded

in this field. The possession by Tel Aviv of nuclear

weapons has placed the entire eastern Arab region under a

direct threat, constant dangers and definite instability.

Without technical and financial support, without the

experts and scientists who are part and parcel of this

support, such weapons would not have been produced in

the region. It is well known — indeed, it has been

declared — that tests are now being conducted on long-

range missiles that could deliver these weapons of mass

destruction to their targets in Arab and Muslim lands

alike. Tests are also being conducted on anti-missile

missiles, as part of the strategic cooperation between

Washington and Tel Aviv.

On the other hand, all Iraqi weapons have been

destroyed. Preparations are being made to destroy all the

weapons of the Arabs and Muslims, who are helpless and

whose territories are occupied. Alliances are being forged

to surround the Arabs and Muslims so as to prevent them

from ever becoming powerful and so as to secure for

Washington their oil, their gas and their markets.

This is the truth, however bitter it may be for us

Arabs and Muslims to swallow. My country would like to

alert the world to the real sources of danger, not the

fictitious ones — that is, those being used to fabricate

causes and pretexts to justify the destruction and

recolonization of the rest of the world.

It is not Libya, nor Syria, nor Iraq, nor Iran nor the

Sudan which constitute any danger, by any measure, to

the security of the region or the security and peace of the

world. The real danger to international peace and security

lies in Washington and Tel Aviv, and those who emulate

them. They both possess and manufacture weapons of

mass destruction. Washington manufactures them and

Washington exports them. This is while the countries to

which I have referred do not manufacture weapons and,

moreover, have been prevented by America from

importing any such weapons. America has imposed an

international arms embargo against those countries. It has

destroyed Iraqi weapons, and is now preparing to destroy

the conventional and even the obsolete weapons possessed

by others.

This is the law of the United States against which

these countries have rebelled. Thus they were labelled

“rogues”. This is the new and old form of discrimination.

This is the newest form of anti-Semitism.

We call for emptying the region of the Arab East of

weapons of mass destruction, which Tel Aviv owns. The

plants that manufacture these weapons should be

subjected to international safeguards and controls. We

also call for investigating the financial and technical

support that enabled Tel Aviv to produce these weapons.

We must criminalize this support and those who provide

24

it. The agreements of military strategic cooperation between

Washington and Tel Aviv are hostile instruments, targeting

the region as a whole and its peoples. This provides

evidence of the real intentions of the United States towards

the region and its peoples, voids its allegations and

argumentations with respect to disarmament and reveals its

intentions.

We highlight these issues to show the world the extent

of the injustice to which we have been subjected and to

what extent the United States of America is deceiving

everybody.

The United States used to have five military bases in

my country. It had monopolized the production and export

of Libyan oil and gas. The United Kingdom also had a

number of military bases in Libya. Through its own

company, British Petroleum, it also produced and exported

our oil.

With the advent of the revolution of 1 September

1969, Libya immediately evacuated the military bases of

those two countries and later liberated its oil wealth from

their companies.

However, under international conditions that the

Secretary-General has rightly called a period of frenzy, the

two countries thought that the time was ripe for a return to

what they were forced to relinquish and to regain control of

the 2,000-kilometre-long Libyan coastline, adjacent to the

three old continents of Africa, Asia and Europe. They

believed the time was ripe to regain control of my

country’s oil, gas and market, as well as neighbouring

markets. Once finished with the Gulf War, they turned their

attention to Libya. However, the two countries were unable

to find a pretext to realize their ambition of a new return to

Libya except by resorting to allegations, which came to be

known later as the Lockerbie case.

What is the real truth about Lockerbie? In brief, and

precisely, it is as follows. First, both the United States of

America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain are

aware, more than anybody else, that Libya has nothing

whatever to do with this aeroplane and the tragic incident

that killed its passengers and crew.

Second, both the United States of America and the

United Kingdom claim that two Libyans placed a time

bomb in a bag on board a Maltese Airlines flight that took

off from Malta, and that the bag was unaccompanied

baggage. They claim that this very bag, which was not

accompanied by a passenger, was transferred in Frankfurt

airport from the Maltese Airlines aeroplane to an

American aeroplane destined for London. Once again,

they say, this same bag was transferred in London airport

from the aircraft originating in Frankfurt to Pan Am

Flight 103, which later took off from London and

exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Can the Assembly imagine how an unaccompanied

bag can move by itself from one airplane to another and

from one airport to another with such accuracy?

Third, the Government of Malta investigated the

matter and found that there were no unaccompanied bags

on the flight in question. Malta announced the results of

the investigation at the time.

Fourth, the competent authorities in Germany, in

turn, investigated the question and found nothing to

corroborate the story about the bag.

Fifth, in any case, my country, despite the known

objectives of the authors of the accusation, dealt seriously

and pragmatically with the accusation. We informed all

concerned parties that we had begun implementation of

the provisions of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the

Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil

Aviation. The legal authorities in Libya began exercising

their legal jurisdiction in accordance with that

Convention.

Sixth, my country asked the two countries concerned

to hand over to Libyan judicial authorities the results of

their investigations so they could be used in our

investigation. This request was rejected.

Seventh, my country then asked the two countries to

send investigators to Libya to participate in the

investigation. Once again they refused.

Eighth, my country then offered to send its judicial

officials to meet with the competent authorities in both

the United States and the United Kingdom to peruse the

file on this question. This offer was turned down.

Ninth, Libya also offered to let a neutral party or

parties to carry out the investigation. The two countries

refused that offer.

Tenth, once again, my country proposed that the

United Nations should carry out the investigation. That

proposal was rejected.

25

Eleventh, in a letter addressed to the Foreign Minister

of the United Kingdom and the United States Secretary of

State by the Secretary of the General People’s Committee

for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, my

country requested that article 14 of the 1971 Montreal

Convention be invoked. That request was refused.

Twelfth, Libya proposed resorting to the International

Court of Justice to decide the case. That proposal was

turned down by the other parties. And when my country

unilaterally took the case to the International Court of

Justice, the parties concerned quickly turned the whole

issue from a legal to a political one, submitting it to the

Security Council to prevent the International Court of

Justice from deciding the case. Here we have the Security

Council dealing with an issue pertaining to two citizens of

a country. The issue is now five years old. So the issue is

before the Security Council precisely to prevent the

International Court of Justice from deciding the case since

the matter was put before the Security Council, despite the

fact that Libya, naturally, had resorted to the International

Court of Justice before the matter was even referred to the

Security Council.

This is how this legal question was politicized. When

did that occur? This was done at the peak of the “frenzy”

period, on 21 January 1992. Nobody at the time could say

no to the United States of America. As we all know, the

Security Council, under well-known and frankly recognized

pressures, adopted resolution 731 (1992) which did not

stipulate any surrender of the suspects, but requested a

response to the demands of the countries concerned. I

repeat, it did not provide for surrendering the suspects.

Thirteenth, my country has fully responded to the

provisions of the resolution both in terms and content by

cooperating with the United Kingdom on the question of

the Irish Republican Army, and with the French

investigating judge in all the demands he made.

Furthermore, we agreed to a trial for the two Libyan

suspects in a fair and neutral court.

Fourteenth, the aim of both the United States and the

United Kingdom has not been to discover the real culprit in

this regrettable and tragic airplane incident. They already

know who the responsible party is. Their real objective has

been to use the whole issue, including the human blood that

was shed, to achieve their own political objectives which I

have already elucidated. To achieve that end, they exploited

the Security Council once again, pushing it to adopt

resolution 748 (1992) which imposes a near total embargo

on Libya and its dealings with the rest of the world. The

Council also adopted resolution 883 (1993), which

complemented the previous resolution.

Fifteenth, in the face of all this intransigence and

arrogance, when all efforts and mediation failed to

convince the two countries concerned to opt for dialogue

and negotiations; since they had earlier unilaterally

severed their diplomatic relations with my country; and

because my country has no extradition treaty with either

of the two countries, we resorted to regional and

international organizations. Today, we would like to put

on record, as always, our deepest appreciation to these

organizations for their support and for their stand in

favour of what is right. Those organizations, let us recall,

represent more than two thirds of the international

community.

We hasten to confirm that the other third is not

against us; rather, its States are simply not members of

those organizations. The League of Arab States, the

Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the

Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement have

all supported my country and expressed their appreciation

for my country’s flexibility in our handling of the issue,

as well as for the positive initiatives we have proposed.

Sixteenth, the League of Arab States and the

Organization of African Unity, through the Harare

summit, under the chairmanship of President Robert

Mugabe, have proposed that the trial of the two suspects

be held in a neutral third country to be determined by the

Security Council; that the two suspects be tried by

Scottish judges, under Scottish law, at the seat of the

International Court of Justice in The Hague; or that a

special criminal tribunal be established to try the two

suspects at the seat of the International Court of Justice in

The Hague.

Seventeenth, both the Secretary-General of the Arab

League and the Secretary-General of the Organization of

African Unity came to United Nations Headquarters with

the resolutions of their respective organizations in hand,

resolutions that are supported by the Organization of the

Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement.

They submitted these resolutions to the Secretary-General

of the United Nations and to the President of the Security

Council and its member States. What was the reaction of

the United States and the United Kingdom? Both rejected

the requests made by other members of the Council and

used the Council’s work mechanism — so-called

consensus — to reject all proposals submitted by their

majesties and excellencies, the kings and presidents of the

26

two organizations. Naturally, this was a shock to both

regional organizations because they were fully and

arrogantly ignored.

Eighteenth, on 25 September of this year, during the

Security Council’s ministerial meeting on Africa, the entire

meeting became a forum for discussing the issue when it

was raised by His Excellency President Robert Mugabe,

President of Zimbabwe and current Chairman of the

Organization of African Unity (OAU), in his address to the

Council. Again, in the name of my country, its leader and

people, I wish to express again our gratitude to President

Mugabe for his honourable defence of the concerns and the

causes of Africa as a whole, and in particular his defence

of my country on this question.

The issue was also raised by His Excellency

Mr. Salim Ahmed Salim, Secretary-General of OAU, and

by most of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the

Council’s members. As we express our gratitude to all of

them, we wish to confirm that their support would have

never been so forthcoming had we been wrong.

Nineteenth, about a week ago, the Council of the

League of Arab States decided to call on Arab States to

mitigate some of the impacts of the sanctions imposed on

my country. We are grateful to the Council and to all our

brothers. We realize that this is a step in the right direction

and that it is but a mild reaction to their being ignored last

July.

We ask you for justice. Members of the Security

Council are not against my country. They have expressed

that in all our meetings with them. They further add that

our problem is with the United States and the United

Kingdom. Our dispute is with the judge. How can anyone

expect the Security Council to solve the problem when our

adversaries are both permanent members of the Council and

possess the veto power?

Once again, our problem is with the United States and

the United Kingdom. We have no problem whatever with

the Security Council, and the Security Council has no

problem with us. Had these two countries accepted the

proposals of the regional and international organizations,

had they showed respect for the States members of these

organizations and for their presidents and representatives,

the Security Council would not have hesitated for one

moment to accept them. This is what we were told by

members of the Council. We are not just saying that.

My country calls on all of you to intervene so we

can reach a peaceful solution to this dispute, one that

would accelerate the holding of the trial for the two

suspects before a fair and just court, in an atmosphere

free from prior condemnation, in any place agreed upon,

or decided upon by the Security Council.

The two suspects were advised by their American

and Scottish lawyers against accepting a trial before any

court in Scotland or the United States. This is because of

intensive media coverage and statements by officials in

the two countries which have created a climate and public

opinion that have convicted them in advance of any trial.

This does not accord with their human right to receive a

just and fair trial. The fact that the United States

Government has accorded Timothy McVeigh, accused in

the Oklahoma explosion, the right to change the venue of

his trial from Oklahoma, where the crime occurred, to

another state — namely Colorado — is evidence of

respect for one of the human rights — a respect which

should not be restricted only to the citizens of the United

States. This is because human rights should be enjoyed by

all human beings, irrespective of their nationality. Human

rights should not be accorded to some and denied to

others.

My country, at all levels of official responsibility,

has repeatedly condemned terrorism in all its forms and

manifestations. We have disassociated ourselves from all

suspected terrorist practices. We have also repeatedly

asked the Secretary-General and the Security Council to

send a committee or envoys to ascertain on the ground

the validity of our claims.

However, the refusal and objections of the United

States prevented the Secretariat and the Security Council

from responding to our requests. This is one of the main

reasons why we have such strong suspicions about the

true intentions of the United States against my country.

This has also exposed its political objectives, for the

attainment of which it did not hesitate to exploit human

blood.

We call on the international community, as

represented in this Assembly, to work towards reaching

a solution as soon as possible.

The United States refusal to allow this side issue —

“the question of terrorism” — to be closed is aimed at

serving the particular objectives of that country, objectives

we have already referred to. Everybody knows that it was

the United States which more than once committed

27

terrorist acts against my country, using its fleets and its

bombers. The most heinous of these acts was the barbaric

raid on the night of 15 April 1986 against the residence and

office of the Libyan brother leader, and against other

residential neighbourhoods in both Tripoli and Benghazi. In

this raid, tens of children, women and elderly were

martyred in their sleep. The United States cannot produce

one shred of evidence to prove the so-called Libyan

terrorism, whereas Libya has dozens of proofs of the

terrorism perpetrated by the United States against Libya.

The raid made on the night of 15 April 1986 is not a

suspected perpetration of an act, as is the case with our

citizens who are suspected by the United States. The raid

of 15 April 1986 is an established fact whose consequences

can still be seen in the tombs of the martyrs in the famous

El-Hani Cemetery and in the remnants of buildings that still

clearly show the marks of bombs and rockets. And if all of

this is far away in Tripoli and Benghazi, I am here before

you and I personally stand as a proof of the terrorism of the

United States. These scars here on my face and on my

head, and on other parts of my body covered by my

clothes, are the result of a bomb that an American aircraft

dropped on my house, which was totally demolished that

night. My young son, who was less than 10 years old at the

time, was also injured.

We, who personally were victims of the American

raid, resorted to the American judicial system here in the

United States and brought a legal suit before an American

court. Despite all the evidence, the American judicial

system rejected our case. This negative experience with

American justice would surely discourage anyone from

accepting to be tried by such a judiciary, especially if the

opposing party was the American Government. I personally

tried to institute a lawsuit and had American lawyers. My

house is destroyed and erased from the Tripoli map. I have

scars on my face, yet the case was rejected. And now we

are to trust it and send our citizens before it? How?

We cannot forget that crime. We will always call for

those who decided, planned and implemented it to appear

before competent Libyan courts for trial. The crime took

place in my country. They say that a crime took place in

Scotland? Fine. But another crime took place in Tripoli and

Banghazi. Are their people citizens, and our people are not

citizens? We are also citizens of our own nation-State. They

have mere suspicions. We have facts not suspicions which

were actually shown on American television screens.

We believe that the reform of the United Nations is of

the utmost importance to us. However, optimum results of

this reform cannot be achieved unless the financial

situation of the Organization is put on the right track and,

most importantly, Member States must pay their assessed

contributions. The fact that the United States has reneged

on its contractual commitments to the United Nations by

not paying its assessed contribution to the budget is the

cause of the financial crisis from which the Organization

has suffered for years. If the United Nations is to be

reformed, that State must pay all of its arrears without

conditions and promise to pay in future, on time and

without pressures that aim to make the United Nations a

hostage of the will and policies of that country.

We know that that State is now pressuring members

of the General Assembly to make up for the lowering of

its contribution by 5 per cent. We know that nothing has

been decided yet regarding changes of assessment or

contributions. This is what we call sitting on top of this

unipolar world. This is what we are warning the world of.

We would not have known that had we not been told by

those who are being pressured to pay the extra 5 per cent.

The fact that they told us — the Libyans — clearly shows

that they are dissatisfied and that they obviously are

refusing. They cannot say no. But we can say no.

Within the framework of the reform process, it is

essential to have a complete review of the situation of the

Security Council. By virtue of our experience with the

Security Council — an experience I have just commented

on — we know and appreciate the importance and

necessity of reforming the Security Council and

expanding its membership. We believe that the reform

should focus first on improving the methods of work of

the Council — its mechanisms — thus making it

impossible for any one country to hamper the work of the

Council or make it irrelevant.

My country, which a quarter of a century ago called

for the abrogation of the veto power, would like to

emphasize now that any reform of the Security Council

that does not rescind the veto power would be

meaningless. There is no longer any historical or

objective reason for maintaining this power. It is not

justifiable by any standard of righteousness, justice and

equality, and even under the standards of democracy, to

which certain countries pay lip service. At the same time,

we believe that the reform process will not be useful if it

does not take into consideration the interests of all

countries and peoples.

That is why my country will support any initiative

that would do away with the present imbalance in the

28

membership of the Security Council. In this respect, we

should like to underline the need to adhere to the proposals

of the Non-Aligned Movement, which are based on full,

sovereign equality among States; seek to apply the

principle of equitable geographical distribution; and

respond to the demands of the developing countries,

which represent the majority of the Members of the

United Nations.

The General Assembly is the United Nations organ

that truly embodies the universal and democratic character

of this international Organization. Since it is the only

intergovernmental body with a mandate to discuss any

question or matter under the Charter, including the

maintenance of international peace and security, Libya

would like to underline the wide-ranging and repeated

calls for the need to invigorate the General Assembly and

enhance its powers so as to increase its effectiveness in

confronting the ever-changing challenges that face the

international community.

Lastly, I wish to apologize for having taken up so

much of the Assembly’s time.