Libya, 1999

I would like at the outset, Sir, to express the warm

congratulations of my delegation and of my country on

your election to the presidency of the General Assembly.

You are one of sisterly Namibia's freedom fighters, and one

of Africa's faithful sons. Your unanimous election to your

important post and your country's simultaneous membership

of the Security Council are strong evidence of the respect

and appreciation that Namibia enjoys in the eyes of the

entire international community. In the Security Council,

Namibia's notable positions on important international

issues also irrefutably demonstrate Namibia's unremitting

struggle for freedom, right, sovereignty and justice — a

struggle now waged by means different from those that

Namibia used during its independence struggle.

I also commend your predecessor, His Excellency

Mr. Didier Opertti, for his successful guidance of the

previous session.

I wish also to welcome the Republic of Kiribati, the

Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga as new

Members of the United Nations.

The Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi

Annan, deserves our deepest appreciation for his

continued efforts to make this Organization freer and less

submissive to the domination and control of the super-

Powers of this critical historical era.

Over the past several decades, the United Nations

has made considerable achievements, the most notable of

which has perhaps been its role in the elimination of

direct colonialism and in the attainment of independence

by many countries which today occupy their proper place

as States Members of this Organization.

The world has witnessed fundamental changes,

which imperatively call for serious reform of the United

Nations and its basic structures, so that the Organization

can truly perform its role as an umbrella, a haven and a

reference-point for all. Colonialist soldiers have left the

harbours and the airports, but with the collapse of

international equilibrium, colonialists are reappearing in

new guises, with new means and with both new and old

approaches. Colonialism is coming back in the guise of

the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, other

financial institutions, economic cartels, and, when

necessary, military alliances. It is coming back in the

guise of international conventions imposed through so-

called international legitimacy, which is really nothing

more than an expression of higher policies dictated

through temptation or coercion. Colonialism is coming

back in the guise of globalization, which is but a means

of ensuring and consolidating dependence in terms of the

economy, politics, culture and even social values.

Colonialism is also returning through direct armed

invasion, when necessary, as we have recently witnessed.

It is also returning through bilateral sanctions policies

enforced through so-called international legitimacy and

through selective disarmament or rearmament.

Colonialism is returning through the elimination — not

the mere violation — of State sovereignty. The slogan

that is now much in vogue, “humanitarian intervention”,

will help erode the little that remains of State sovereignty.

That pretext has been completely exposed. If the new

Colonialists understood the real meaning of humanity,

they would not be producing and stockpiling all kinds of

weapons of mass destruction or committing aggression

against others. Nor would they be imposing sanctions on

countries, as they continue to do, with the aim of

16

humiliating, starving and killing their peoples. We declare

our absolute rejection of intervention under any slogan.

This is the world following the collapse of

international equilibrium: the strong and the rich are

becoming stronger and richer, and the weak and the poor

are becoming weaker, poorer and more deprived.

In the face of these fundamental changes, it has

become necessary, indeed urgently imperative, that the

United Nations should undergo a transformation that would

enable it to respond to its new tasks as an umbrella, a

haven and a reference-point for all. This change will not

happen by itself, nor will the powerful initiate it. The

weaker nations can only resort to uniting their limitless

efforts, strengths and potentials to bring about and impose

such change. My country believes that this desired change

must achieve the following:

First, the authority for decision-making in the United

Nations must rest with the General Assembly, where

Member States enjoy equal sovereignty.

Secondly, the Security Council must become an

executive instrument or authority for the General Assembly.

Thirdly, there must be a radical revision of Security

Council membership that will be equitable to all under-

represented regions, particularly in the southern hemisphere:

Africa, Asia and South America.

Fourthly, the Security Council's rules of procedures

must be issued by the General Assembly, which represents

the international community. Otherwise, it will be

meaningless to say that the Security Council works on

behalf of the international community. Quite simply put, the

majority of the members of the international community did

not participate in the formulation of the Charter. A very

small number of the United Nations Members formulated

it over half a century ago.

Fifthly, all privileges resulting from the victories and

defeats of World War II must be abolished, particularly the

privilege of veto, and any other privileges that prevent this

most important international Organization from becoming

truly democratic.

Despite the crises, conflicts and wars that ravage the

African continent, this year has witnessed solutions for

some of them, prospects for several others and initiatives

for the solution of the remaining conflicts. As we express

our satisfaction with this trend, we wish to recall, as we

have always done, that African wars and conflicts are the

product of the division of Africa by the colonial Powers,

which must assume full responsibility for all the damages

inflicted upon the continent, including an apology and full

compensation to its peoples. The solutions reached for

many African conflicts were a result of the enormous

efforts of the Organization of African Unity (OAU),

subregional organizations, several African States and

some African leaders who truly care about Africa's

security, stability and development.

Libya has effectively supported and participated in

these initiatives, and will continue to do so, in close

cooperation with the OAU, all other concerned countries

and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. As a

contribution to the efforts made to tackle the situation in

the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes

region, Libya has succeeded in convening a number of

meetings, for heads of State of the region, in Sirte, Libya,

where they reached the Sirte Agreement, later completed

and signed in Lusaka, which is aimed at putting an end to

the conflict in the area.

In Somalia, Libya continues its efforts, in

coordination with all concerned countries and groups in

conflict, for national reconciliation in that forgotten

country. We hope that these efforts will result in the

reunification and stability of Somalia. Libya has also

contributed to bringing peace to Sierra Leone and stability

to Guinea-Bissau, as well as contributing to the efforts

undertaken by the OAU to put an end to the dispute

between brothers in Ethiopia and Eritrea, in the Horn of

Africa. A Libyan envoy was sent there to help end the

war and bring peace to those two brotherly countries.

Africa's plights are not confined to wars and

conflicts, but also include several economic and social

problems: 44 per cent of Africans live in abject poverty;

AIDS threatens the entire African population; malaria and

other epidemic diseases still threaten the lives of millions

in Africa. In respect of the latter, my country calls for the

speedy adoption and implementation of an international

plan to eradicate these diseases in Africa before it

becomes impossible to contain and eliminate them.

Attempts by African states to confront and solve these

problems are hampered by the heavy debts of the

continent, which reached $350 billion in 1998, equalling

300 per cent of the value of African exports and services.

The time has come to cancel African debts and to deal

with this question on the basis of new and equitable

principles.

17

In order to confront these challenges and to usher a

strong and united Africa into the new century, our brother

Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi extended an invitation to his

brothers, the leaders of Africa, to convene an extraordinary

summit in Sirte, Libya, from 8 to 9 September 1999. Their

positive response had been unprecedented since the

establishment of the OAU. They all participated in the

summit, with the exception of Somalia, which has no

central government. Thirty-nine heads of State and four

Prime Ministers were at the forefront of the participants.

Some of the founding fathers of the Organization of

African Unity were also at the summit, as well as former

OAU Secretaries-General. The summit, which is a historic

event in its own right, concluded with the adoption of the

Sirte Declaration establishing an African Union and its

political, economic and legislative institutions. Africa is

now determined, more than ever before, to surmount all the

negative aspects of its present realities and to move forward

towards its future, full of hopes and aspirations, counting

basically on its own resources, capabilities and the

endeavours of its sons.

The Palestinian issue has not been settled yet, simply

because the essence of the problem is being ignored:

Palestine is still occupied. Its people are still scattered all

over the globe as refugees, replaced by immigrants from all

over the world. Unless an end is put to all this, and unless

the Palestinian people are given their right to return to their

homeland, neither peace nor security will be achieved in the

Arab East region. The occupation of the Syrian Golan

Heights must also be totally ended, as well as the

occupation of southern Lebanon, in implementation of

Security Council resolution 425 (1978).

We demand the immediate lifting of sanctions imposed

on Iraq, and we emphasize the importance of preserving its

unity and territorial integrity, respect for its sovereignty,

non-intervention in its internal affairs and ending the

ongoing military aggression against it.

In order for the world to live in peace and security, it

must be freed from the nuclear horror that threatens all

peoples. Elimination of nuclear arsenals and all other

weapons of mass destruction must have priority, and all

efforts to achieve disarmament, at both regional and

international levels, must be concentrated on realizing this

goal. Unless those who currently possess such weapons get

rid of them, there will always be those who strive to

possess them. Efforts aimed at the non-proliferation of

nuclear weapons will be futile unless the nuclear Powers

take practical steps that would demonstrate their serious

commitment to the undertakings they have made. These two

tracks must move together or stop together. We have no

other choice.

The Arab region is subject to the threat of nuclear

weapons possessed by Tel Aviv. These weapons

constitute a permanent threat to the people of the region

and to neighbouring areas, and unless these weapons are

eliminated, all efforts to prevent their proliferation in the

region will be unsuccessful.

Libya is the southern Mediterranean country with the

longest coast. Therefore, we have a vital interest in

making the Mediterranean a Sea of peace and cooperation

for the benefit of all peoples of this basin. This goal can

be achieved only if foreign military bases and fleets are

removed from the area, as they are a source of constant

danger to all Mediterranean peoples.

Several countries, including my own, are still trying

to overcome the thorny problem of landmines that were

planted in by the belligerent Powers during the World

Wars. These landmines have caused damage, losses and

tragedies of untold magnitude, both human and material.

Vast areas of Libya are covered by millions of land mines

deployed by the Allies and the Axis Powers during the

Second World War. We hold those Powers responsible

for what they have inflicted upon our people as a result

of these landmines, and we reiterate our demand that the

States responsible implement the resolutions of the

General Assembly adopted in this regard, through the

payment of compensation to the affected countries and

peoples and the removal of these landmines.

The revolution of 1969 allowed Libya to achieve its

true and complete independence. By driving the foreign

military forces and bases from its soil, my country

liberated its policies and decision-making capabilities. For

these reasons, Libya has since then been the target of

ongoing hostile media campaigns aimed at distorting our

policies and tarnishing our international image. Our

support for and solidarity with liberation movements have

been portrayed as support for terrorism. Our standing by

the side of the oppressed and the downtrodden and our

assistance to help them liberate their countries and their

resources and defend their own interests have been

considered interference in the internal affairs of others.

There have also been clandestine campaigns that

have sought to assassinate political leaders, in particular

the leader of our revolution, Colonel Muammar

Al-Qadhafi, who has been targeted several times. Both air

force and naval campaigns have targeted Libya’s

18

territorial waters and the main cities of Tripoli and

Benghazi. As a result, dozens of martyrs were killed and

many times as many were wounded — in addition to

extensive loss of and damage to property. The main

objective of these raids was once again to murder our

brother Muammar Al-Qadhafi, whose home, office and tent

were destroyed during these raids.

Economic pressure has been used against Libya.

Unilateral boycotts and embargoes were followed by

bilateral and collective embargoes, then by the

internationalization of these embargoes after the Security

Council had become hostage to the will of the powerful

since the collapse of the international balance of power.

This was particularly the case during the first years of the

“era of frenzy”, as Mr. Kofi Annan called it in a report to

the General Assembly.

Why and how was the international “boycott” — as

opposed to international “sanctions” — imposed? I call it

a boycott and not sanctions because a sanction is a form of

punishment for a definitively proven action, a punishment

decreed after a final sentence has been pronounced by a

competent court that has the jurisdiction to condemn the

action in question. But no proof or evidence was presented

to the Security Council that Libya, or even the two Libyan

suspects, had actually committed any action that led to the

crash of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of

Lockerbie. Nevertheless, the sanctions resolutions were

issued in the name of so-called international legitimacy, a

legitimacy that is both wrong and wronged. This is wrong

because resolutions are adopted in the name of the Security

Council; the Security Council is wronged because it is

forced to issue resolutions under political and economic

pressures and threats. The relevant resolutions were adopted

on the basis of suspicions regarding just two Libyan

citizens — yet the sanctions targeted the entire population

of Libya. This was a form of collective punishment against

an entire people on the basis of a mere suspicion that had

not been fully investigated. This punishment was imposed

without a trial and obviously without any conviction in a

court of law. So much indeed for legitimacy. In fact, how

legitimate could this be during the years of frenzy?

The conclusions — or cinematic fantasies — regarding

the suspicions were refuted at the time. Malta conducted an

official investigation, the findings of which demonstrated

that not one unaccompanied suitcase was loaded onto the

flight from Malta to Frankfurt. For their part, the Frankfurt

authorities investigated the matter and reached the

conclusion that not one unaccompanied suitcase had arrived

at their airport from Malta, nor had left it for London.

What then, is the origin or basis of this suspicion?

I would like to briefly remind the Assembly that

from the first moment that the accusation was broadcast

by the media, and before the matter was even presented

to the Security Council, Libya had done the following.

First, we had requested the other party to provide the

judiciary authorities in Libya with its findings so that

these authorities could commence their investigations

accordingly. Alternatively, we proposed that that party

send investigators to Libya to participate in the

investigation. We proposed sending Libyan judges to

review the case file. We also proposed that an

investigation be conducted by a neutral party or parties,

or by the United Nations. All these requests were refused.

Secondly, we requested the application of article 14

of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of

Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation or the

assignment of this matter to the International Court of

Justice. All these requests and proposals were also

refused.

Then, on 27 February 1998, the International Court

of Justice issued two rulings in favour of Libya,

confirming its jurisdiction over the case under the

Montreal Convention. The Non-Aligned Movement — at

a meeting of its Foreign Ministers in Cartagena,

Colombia, from 18 to 20 May 1998 — made a

recommendation to the upcoming Non-Aligned Movement

Summit in Durban, South Africa, that the sanctions

imposed on Libya be lifted if the other party to the

dispute did not agree to suspend the sanctions at the next

review of the Security Council, which had been set for

July 1998. At the Organization of African Unity summit

in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, held on 10 June 1998,

that organization declared that its members would no

longer comply with the Security Council sanctions if the

other party continued to reject any of the options

proposed by international organizations to resolve the

conflict. Faced with all these developments, the other

party had only two options left: either to accept a trial in

a third country, or for the international community to

immediately lift the sanctions without having recourse to

the Security Council. Such a situation would have

threatened the authority of the Security Council — or,

more accurately, it would have threatened the authority of

those who influence the Security Council — this latter

being in the Council’s view — a much more serious

matter.

19

A further legal complication was the possibility that

the General Assembly would be presented with a

constitutional dilemma, especially after the issuance of the

two rulings of the International Court of Justice — the

highest judicial institution of the United Nations. It was the

Security Council versus the International Court of Justice.

We could present the case to the General Assembly at any

time. The other party therefore had no option, and

reluctantly, accepted, hoping to gain time. But then it

returned to its main objective vis-à-vis Libya. It declared its

acceptance of a trial in a third country and presented, as

always, a badly written draft resolution to the Security

Council, along with other draft resolutions imposed on the

Council by means that are well known to all, especially to

the Council’s members.

Once again, most Security Council members supported

Libya, and once again the international community

reiterated its strong support for Libya in letters that

reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of the

international community. These letters are all official

documents of the Security Council.

But in all fairness, and to state the truth, from which

we have never deviated, I will say that the Government of

the United Kingdom has reacted seriously to the Libyan

proposal, expressing its willingness to refer the whole

question to none other than a Scottish court sitting in the

Netherlands. We state the truth in our own interest and in

the interest of others.

The rest is well known to all delegations. On 5 April

1999, the two suspects arrived of their own free will in the

Netherlands, accompanied by Mr. Hans Corell, the

Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs.

But has the other party fulfilled its obligations? Has it

shown respect for the resolutions of the Security Council?

The answer is no. In fact, the other party prevented the

adoption of a resolution by the Security Council to suspend

the sanctions and agreed only to a press release. Once

again, under pressure from the Non-Aligned Movement

members of the Security Council and from the other

Council members, and after several letters were submitted

by the States members of the Non-Aligned Movement, the

Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the

Islamic Conference and the Arab League to the Security

Council and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,

the other party accepted, unwillingly, the text of a

presidential statement for the suspension of the embargo.

Three months after the sanctions were suspended, on

30 June 1999, the Secretary-General submitted a report to

the Security Council in document S/1999/726 pursuant to

paragraph 16 of resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph 8 of

resolution 1192 (1998), which requested him to report to

the Security Council within 90 days on compliance by the

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the remaining provisions of

resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992). On 9 July 1999,

the Security Council considered the Secretary-General's

report, but was unable to adopt a resolution that would

have lifted the sanctions imposed on Libya, because of

the intransigence of one State, the United States, which is

a party to the dispute. That State even threatened to use

the veto. This, in fact, can only be seen as reneging on

previous commitments made by the Security Council in

paragraph 16 of its resolution 883 (1993) and paragraph

8 of its resolution 1192 (1998). Moreover, it ignores the

Secretary-General's report, whose contents lead to only

one conclusion: that Libya has fulfilled all its obligations

under Security Council resolutions.

What justification, if any, does the United States

have for using the veto to prevent the Security Council

from adopting a resolution to lift the unjust sanctions on

Libya? First, the United States has reiterated the

accusation it has made before and since the fabrication of

the Lockerbie case: that Libya supports terrorism. The

United States has been repeating that allegation ever since

we evicted it from Libya's military bases and harbours,

ended its monopoly on our oil, and liberated our country

from colonialism. That is why the United States still

accuses us of terrorism. The Secretary-General's report

categorically refutes this claim. Members may refer to

paragraphs 29 to 34 of the report and to other pages in

order to ascertain the baseless nature of this accusation.

Moreover, one can also cite reports issued by the

American State Department and statements made by

present and former officials of American Administrations

that all point to the fact that such claims can no longer be

made.

Libya is a victim of American terrorism, not vice

versa. It is the United States of America that committed

all the acts of aggression that we have previously referred

to. It is the United States that sheltered, financed, trained

and armed terrorists and transported them to Libya to

commit acts of terrorism in 1984 and afterwards. Those

who continue to shelter terrorists wanted by other

countries are not in a position to refer to others by

descriptions that apply only to themselves. Libya has

stood by liberation movements, particularly in Africa.

This is a legitimate cause, not support for terrorism.

20

The second justification is that Libya has to cooperate

with the Scottish court in the Netherlands. This is

meaningless, since Libya has undertaken to cooperate with

the court, as the Secretary-General's report has shown.

Furthermore, this matter has been discussed by the judiciary

authorities of the three countries in the presence of Mr.

Corell. The Security Council, in paragraph 4 of its

resolution 1192 (1998), decided that all States, not Libya

alone, shall cooperate with the court. The text is available;

we can look it up if there is any doubt. Since all parties are

called upon to cooperate, how can this argument be used to

prevent the Security Council from acting in accordance with

its obligations by lifting the embargo on Libya? This matter

falls under the competence of the International Court of

Justice and the Scottish court, with which our judiciary

authorities are cooperating. It is blatant interference when

a member of the Security Council tries to influence the

work of these courts, which are independent institutions that

deserve the respect not only of Libya, but of all others as

well.

The third justification is even harder to swallow. It is

the demand that Libya compensate the families of the

victims. How can this be done when the court has yet to

sit? It will not hold its first session until 4 February 2000

and the laws state that the suspect is innocent until proven

guilty. When we raised this issue, it was suggested that we

settle out of court. Why out of court? Why then is the court

in the Netherlands? We were told that these are American

laws. American laws apply to United States citizens, not to

Libyan citizens. The Security Council and the General

Assembly reiterated last year and the year before that

national laws cannot be applied beyond national borders.

This logic of power should be used only to uphold the law.

At the joint meeting, the Secretary-General himself was

surprised to hear this proposal before the court was in

session. They reiterated it. He asked them how it could be

done. They said that the court would hand down a sentence.

He pointed out that it had not yet done so and that, if it did,

Libya would be committed to respecting it. How could they

possibly make such a request when the suspects have not

been found guilty? We are trying to prove their innocence

and our country's. How can we be asked to pay

compensation when a ruling has not yet been issued? This

is yet another way of interfering in the internal affairs of

the Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands.

Who will compensate Libya for the damages it has

sustained in excess of $70 billion after seven years of

unjustified sanctions and embargoes? Who will compensate

us? The United Nations? Will the Member States

compensate Libya for something they have not done? Let

us be logical and work within the law on the basic

principles of justice. Since we have agreed to the

establishment of the court, let us allow the court to carry

out its responsibilities.

Libya's fulfilment of its obligations has also been

underlined in the Secretary-General's report, in the

decisions of the thirty-fifth African Summit held in

Algeria last July, in the decisions of the Arab League this

September and in the decisions of the Ministerial Council

of the Non-Aligned Movement a week ago. All these

decisions call for the immediate and complete lifting of

the sanctions. In this, they join the overwhelming majority

of the international community.

Preventing the Security Council from adopting an

overdue resolution lifting sanctions that should not have

been imposed in the first place will threaten the Council's

credibility and ability to honour its obligations. It will

also reinforce the Security Council's failure to act in

compliance with the will of the majority of the United

Nations Member States and in accordance with the

principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, as

stated in Article 24. The will of one State cannot

represent the will of the entire international community.

My country requests one thing: that the Security

Council speedily adopt a decision lifting all the sanctions

imposed on Libya. We demand that the case not be

allowed to be politicized after the matter has taken its

legal course. The case should be left entirely to the

Scottish court in the Netherlands, without any interference

from any political entity, including the Security Council.

If the Security Council continues to be prevented from

adopting such a decision, my country will take all

necessary steps to guarantee fairness, including raising a

constitutional dilemma between the highest and most

important judiciary organ, the International Court of

Justice, and the Security Council. We will raise it before

the General Assembly in order to have a decision taken.