Sri Lanka, 1999

Allow me first to

extend to our President's distinguished predecessor, His

Excellency Didier Opertti, Foreign Minister of Uruguay,

President of the fifty-third session of the General Assembly,

our gratitude for the excellent manner in which he

conducted the work of the previous session.

Allow me also to offer to the Republic of Kiribati, the

Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga the

congratulations and warmest good wishes of the

Government and the people of Sri Lanka on their election

to membership of the General Assembly of the United

Nations. We welcome them and assure them of our

unstinted support as they take up their places in the

Assembly of nations.

Our President's well-deserved election to the chair of

this historic final session of the General Assembly of the

United Nations for the twentieth century gives us great

pleasure. Many of us, Foreign Ministers, have known him

well over the years. We have worked with him, and we

have greatly admired the energy and dedication that he has

brought to the performance of his duties as the Permanent

Representative of his country. The developing countries in

particular have cause to remember with gratitude the role

he has played in the deliberations of the Non-Aligned

Movement and the G-77. He brings to his office wide

experience of the systems and practices of the United

Nations. He also brings to his office a high degree of

sensitivity to the important issues of the day.

I noticed with keen interest that in his opening

statement to the Assembly the President referred in

considerable detail to the problem of child soldiers. This

reference was particularly heartening to me as I had, on the

basis of the Graca Machel report, first brought the issue of

child soldiers to the attention of the Assembly in the course

of my address in 1997. In Sri Lanka a rebel group has for

several years been conscripting children, even as young as

10, for battle. Even worse, it has been making children,

girls and boys, into suicide bombers, thus creating a

horrible new phenomenon of depravity and cruelty that the

world has never seen before. If the conscience of the world

is not outraged by the tragic fate of these children in my

country, then nothing will move us to action in defence of

the young and the helpless anywhere. In his opening

address to the General Assembly, the President referred

to the boast of the “soulless recruiters” that children

“are numerous and readily available, more malleable

and impressionable, learn quickly, are small and

agile, and quite simply require less food and

supplies than adults”.

He described their fate as “horrendous” and said that in

his view it

“demands that the United Nations show renewed

commitment and redouble its efforts as the

repository of humanity's conscience and social

justice in the world.” (A/54/PV.1)

The President referred to the work being done by inter-

governmental and non-governmental organizations to save

children, and exhorted them to

“continue to blame and shame Governments for not

doing enough to protect our children's lives and their

future.” (ibid)

But in some countries Governments are completely

blameless. In Sri Lanka no Government, either before

independence 50 years ago or after, has ever recruited

children under 18 years of age into the armed forces. In

my country it is only the Liberation Tigers of Tamil

Eelam (LTTE) that resorts to this abominable practice.

These rebel groups are beyond the pale of the law. They

acknowledge no international conventions. They are not

answerable to any international body. And yet they must

be brought to book. Some of them, the LTTE included,

operate with impunity in certain countries, wearing the

innocent garb of charitable, religious or social

organizations. They collect money for ostensibly anodyne

purposes. But in fact the money goes to buy weapons for

war. And, in truth, host Governments which provide

shelter to these organizations under the umbrella of liberal

laws of asylum and immigration know, or could easily

find out, that those moneys are going to fuel the very war

into which young children are being dragooned. These

Governments adopt as their explanation for inaction the

impeccable excuse that they do not have laws under

which fund-raising for terrorist purposes can be punished.

This is true, but it will soon cease to be true when the

convention for the suppression of the financing of

terrorism is adopted — we hope and pray — at this fifty-

fourth session of the General Assembly, requiring all

signatory States to enact domestic legislation in keeping

with the provisions of the convention.

25

The Secretary-General in his report (S/1999/957) to

the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed

conflict has recommended that the Security Council urge

Member States to support the proposal to raise the

minimum age for recruitment and participation in hostilities

to 18, and demand that non-State actors involved in conflict

not use children below the age of 18 in hostilities, or face

the imposition of targeted sanctions if they do not comply.

One of the most effective sanctions would be the

proscription of such organizations in countries where they

presently collect money without let or hindrance, or their

being named terrorist organizations, as by the United States

of America, for instance, and the consequent illegalization

of their activities.

Since 1997 there has been considerable progress on

the question of child soldiers. The issue is now on centre

stage. Regional conferences have been held, and a world

conference is to be held next year. The office of the Special

Representative of the Secretary General for Children and

Armed Conflict is operational. A growing number of

countries refer to this issue in the General Assembly and at

other forums. Most recently the Foreign Ministers of the

Nordic Countries roundly condemned the practice and

pledged their support for its eradication. The Security

Council has unanimously adopted its first-ever resolution on

the plight of children. The first decade of the next

millennium has been designated the International Decade

for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children

of the World. And the President stated that he would make

it his business to add his “voice and devotion to” the

“laudable efforts to make the twenty-first century one

of love and security for every child in the world.”

(ibid)

In Sri Lanka we have decided to set up a rehabilitation

centre for the children who desert the rebel army. The task

of restoring them to health and normalcy is a daunting one.

It is a task for which we can certainly use all the help we

can get from those who have experience in that field.

My plea to the General Assembly today, two years

after I first brought up the question of child soldiers, is that

we must proceed with the utmost dispatch to rescue these

children from their fate. They are already scarred; if we do

not act quickly they will be scarred beyond redemption.

We leave the twentieth century with many spectacular

achievements behind us. But let us make no mistake — we

move into the twenty-first century carrying with us old,

intractable problems that have been with us since the dawn

of time. As the present century draws to a close, new

problems of unparalleled menace and danger have

emerged. They will undoubtedly occupy our attention well

into the next century.

Poverty, illiteracy, ill-health, hunger, unemployment,

uncontrolled urbanization, the growth of mega cities —

these are old problems which deeply affect over half of

humanity.

We have not addressed these problems with

sufficient vigour over the past decades. While the United

Nations systems were set up to tackle these problems, the

capacity of the system to deliver results has been grossly

inadequate.

The challenge of fighting human poverty must

necessarily continue to have the highest priority. The poor

continue to become poorer, remaining deprived of the

basic necessities of life. This is morally outrageous in an

era of abundance and conspicuous consumption. Poverty

degrades humanity and is a threat to the most basic of all

human rights. The onus is on us to unite, to wage a moral

war, to eliminate the scourge of poverty from our midst.

Sri Lanka is of the view that any development

agenda of the future must contain a social dimension and

assure protection to the most vulnerable elements of our

society. It is in this regard that the international

community must move beyond the Heavily Indebted Poor

Countries Debt Initiative. By revising the criteria of

classification, we would expand the number of countries

that could be helped towards achieving meaningful

reduction in both the stock of debt and its servicing. Debt

relief and official development assistance, which has been

dwindling in recent years, should be restored to its former

levels, void of conditionality, at least for the least

developed countries. A positive step would be the

cancellation of their foreign debt. This would help release

their very limited resources for social and poverty

alleviation programmes. They must be urgently put on the

path to sustainable development, if they are to survive.

Though relieving these countries of a major portion of

their debt burden is a commendable step, it is equally

important to ensure that they do not relapse into the

poverty trap.

The time has come for the countries of the South to

formulate an effective and implementable economic

agenda. The recommendations of the Non-Aligned

Movement ad hoc panel of economists are of primary

importance in organizing the substantive work of the

26

agenda for the South. They include the need for the

elaboration and regular updating of the developing

countries' agenda; development of a networking system

between countries of the South, involving specialists and

researchers in the various fields of importance; an economic

coordination scheme to help identify and analyse aspects of

international economic and trade-related issues; and the

assembling and launching of expert groups, which could

mobilize those national and inter-South institutions, like the

South Centre in Geneva.

The South Centre could be a possible coordinating

mechanism, which could facilitate the implementation of

the South agenda. With the increased marginalization of

developing countries in matters of international finance and

trade, it is imperative that we urgently put in place a

coordinating mechanism to implement the recommendations

made by the ad hoc panel of economists.

The general thrust of globalization and liberalization

of the international economy has now become irreversible.

The growing linkages between countries, the opening up of

markets, the spread of investments, the impact of

technology on standardizing products, the shrinking of

distances and the speed of modern communications, offer

new windows of opportunity for developing countries,

especially if their positive aspects are seized upon and their

pitfalls avoided. The task facing us in the developing world

today is one of adapting this twin process to conform to our

own specific requirements and priorities. This, in our view,

would be the primary objective of an economic agenda of

the South in the evolving global economy of the future.

Although there have been significant developments in

the world economy under the influence of the doctrine of

globalization and liberalization, it is imperative to recognize

its limitations and drawbacks where developing countries

are concerned. We need to grapple with the reality and

shake off any feelings of complacency. It is now

increasingly evident that the benefits of globalization have

by and large bypassed much of the developing world,

despite strict adherence to the tenets of the structural

adjustment policies. The poorest among us — spanning the

continents of Africa, Central America and Asia — have

experienced increasing marginalization in the world

economy.

Surveying the South, we find it evident that

globalization and liberalization have, paradoxically,

increased the economic gap between rich and poor

countries. This is the conclusion reached in the tenth United

Nations Development Programme Human Development

Report. Domestic liberalization measures undertaken by

many of the developing countries have also contributed

towards a widening of the gap between the rich and the

poor. A number of countries have recorded some

acceleration of economic growth in the wake of

liberalization and deregulation. But they have also

witnessed a shift in income distribution in favour of those

in the upper income groups. Domestic policy reforms

undertaken by a large number of developing counties in

the direction of liberalization and deregulation have not

secured for them a place on the “Globalization Express”.

The globalization and liberalization process is

unfolding in a manner which gives developing countries

little voice in shaping the policy framework that

underpins this procedure. The ad hoc panel of economists

under the aegis of the Non-Aligned Movement, which

was set up on a proposal made by Sri Lanka, has

concluded that there is very little opportunity for

developing countries to be represented at discussions and

in the councils under which various aspects of the

globalization process are assessed, monitored and tailored.

Initial optimism on globalization and liberalization

is being replaced by anxiety and concern. The emergent

economies in Asia are in crisis, experiencing sharp

downward pressures on their currencies and capital

markets and experiencing stresses, not only on their

economic structures, but also on their social fabric and

political processes. Fears of widespread international

repercussions have borne fruit, and the impact of

contagion is all too evident. A bitter lesson that has

become all too obvious is the vulnerability of economies

to uncontrolled financial flows of various kinds,

particularly those of a speculative nature.

The globalization and liberalization environment

contains no safeguards to control and regulate

destabilizing forces in a situation in which rapid

movements of vast amounts of capital across national

borders is a daily reality. The response of the multilateral

financial institutions and the major Powers to the East

Asian crisis has been ad hoc and ex post facto, but the

need in the first place was for preventive mechanisms.

In this milieu, Sri Lanka's response has been to

maintain as best it could a steady level of economic

growth, despite an unfavourable external economic

environment. Our capital account transactions have only

partially been liberalized. In our view, foreign direct

investment should be of a medium or long-term nature in

27

order to discourage excessive outflow of short-term capital

during a financial crisis.

It is now virtually established wisdom that the least

developed countries have been increasingly marginalized in

the globalization and liberalization process. A restructuring

of the global financial architecture must include special

protection for these most vulnerable segments of our global

society. Since a crisis in any one part of the global structure

has the power to cause havoc in the rest of the world

economy, we must look beyond national solutions to global

ones, for both are now irrevocably interlinked.

Sri Lanka, as chair of the Group of 24, has taken a

special interest in building a consensus among developing

countries on the issues of reforming the global financial

architecture, and also on the matter of implementation of

World Trade Organization agreements. As a member of

regional groupings, such as the Group of 15, the Group of

77, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Bangladesh-India-

Myanmar-Sri Lanka-Thailand Economic Cooperation

(BIMST-EC) and the Indian Ocean Rim Association for

Regional Co-operation (IOR-ARC), and also as the current

chair of the South Asian Association for Regional

Cooperation (SAARC), Sri Lanka hopes to play a part in

evolving a developing country consensus on this issue and

initiating a healthy debate with developed countries, with

the hope of establishing a new, dynamic, mutually

beneficial international financial architecture. As a part of

this effort, we have been active in promoting a South-South

dialogue and developing an agenda for the South.

In this connection, I wish to commend the

observations of the German Foreign Minister in his speech

to the Assembly a few days ago. He said:

“The United Nations third major task alongside

peacekeeping and promoting human rights in the

coming century will be to bring about a reconciliation

between rich and poor countries ... The development

of the poorer and the poorest countries must not be

left to the invisible hand of the global market ... The

rich countries have a responsibility to help poor

countries take advantage of globalization and enable

them to have a fairer share of the world economy by

assisting them with internal reforms and by opening

up markets ... Development cooperation in the

broadest sense must become one of the United Nations

core tasks to a greater degree than hitherto. Science

and technology are geared far too much to the

problems of rich countries.” (A/54/PV.8)

The phenomenon of nations pooling their resources

and strengths, either for collective security or economic

development, has been a particular phenomenon of the

second half of this century. South Asia has been no

exception, the only difference being that the process of

regional cooperation commenced relatively late — just 15

years ago — in comparison to other parts of the world.

We were also clear from the very outset that our

endeavours were targeted solely for economic and social

development.

The early phase of regional cooperation in South

Asia required the building of the necessary institutional

capacities of the South Asian Association for Regional

Cooperation (SAARC). Once these capacities were in

place, we began during the last decade to work on the

core issues of economic and commercial cooperation.

We have made some progress in tariff liberalization

in South Asia under the SAARC Preferential Trading

Arrangement. This progress has given us the confidence

to contemplate the more ambitious task of establishing a

regional free-trade area. At the SAARC Summit in

Colombo hosted by Sri Lanka last year, a decision was

taken, and thereafter implemented, to begin drafting the

legal treaty for a free-trade regime.

The Colombo Summit also manifested our

determination as a region to equip ourselves to maximize

the opportunities afforded by the process of globalization.

Our Commerce Ministers have been meeting regularly to

prepare for the World Trade Organization (WTO)

Ministerial Meeting in Seattle. We will be spelling out in

Seattle our views on the achievements so far of the

multilateral trading system that has now been put in place

and the course corrections we believe are required. We

have also networked our central banks and finance

Ministries since the Colombo Summit, to strengthen our

capacities to anticipate and cope with developments in the

international financial system.

The economic focus of our regional cooperation has

not made us unmindful of our other primary objective,

namely of social advancement for our region. The

challenges our region faces are many. They relate to

education, the empowerment of women, health and

population issues, and so on. We are trying to evolve a

link between regional goals and national programmes in

the social sector through a depoliticized common vision.

To this end we have, again after the Colombo Summit,

commenced work on a Social Charter for South Asia.

28

The gains we have made in regional cooperation in

South Asia are certainly not the material of which

sensational headlines are made. In fact, they may even have

gone unnoticed in some quarters. Yet we in South Asia

know that our achievements are incremental, durable and

long-lasting. Whatever may be the burdens imposed by

history on our region, our common aspiration for the

development and welfare of our peoples brings the

Governments of South Asia together in collective

endeavour. Our organization has an inherent strength and

resilience that has enabled it to weather serious crises in

relations between some of our members. It has emerged

stronger after each such test of its capacity for collective

action.

Among the new problems of unparalleled menace and

danger that have emerged towards the close of the present

century are heightened terrorist activities in many countries

and ever-proliferating criminal activities in the areas of

narcotics, human trafficking and arms smuggling. Every

time I have spoken from this rostrum, I have argued that

terrorism must be tackled collectively if it is to be tackled

effectively at all. In earlier years this plea seemed to fall on

deaf ears. But a rash of terrorist bombings in the West

galvanized the rich and powerful countries into action.

Today we have one Convention in place and two others

under consideration at this very session. I am content this

year merely to reiterate my plea that there should be no

relaxation in the fight against terrorism. I urge other

countries, particularly in the West, to follow the lead of the

United States of America in enacting legislation to outlaw

terrorist organizations.

In the unfolding debate on the stand-off between state

sovereignty and the rights of individuals being subjected to

massive human-rights violations, we must be careful to see

that terrorist organizations do not reap the benefit of

misplaced sympathy in situations of civil conflict. Those

who resort to terror in pursuit of their political objectives

must never be permitted or encouraged to believe that

unremitting terror will ultimately bring its reward in

recognition and results. On the contrary, it is only the

recognition that a campaign of terror will put its exponents

beyond the pale of civilized discourse that will persuade

terrorists to seek other ways of gaining a hearing.

At the close of this century it is relevant to ask of

ourselves this question: do moral considerations any longer

inspire or motivate our actions, or have we been completely

overtaken by pragmatic considerations reflected in our

respective national interests, subjectively defined?

I would like, in this context, to make an observation.

We have all heard the familiar jibe that a diplomat is

someone who is paid to lie abroad for his country.

Indeed, foreign relations and foreign policy have always

had the reputation of being somewhat amoral, the object

being to secure some national advantage, with the

morality of the end, or of the means used to secure the

end, being relatively unimportant. But the consequences

of this approach for international relations have been

deplorable. The Charter of the United Nations commences

with these memorable words:

“We the peoples of the United Nations

determined to save succeeding generations from the

scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has

brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,

in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the

equal rights of men and women and of nations large

and small, and

“to establish conditions under which respect for

the obligations arising from treaties and other

sources of international law can be maintained, and

“to promote social progress and better standards

of life in larger freedom”.

One has only to listen to these words to realize that

the 54 years that have elapsed since they were first stated

have brought serious disappointments. Not only has the

world experienced numerous wars, but nations and

peoples have experienced many kinds of immoral

pressures and intimidation. Social progress and better

standards of life in larger freedom have, for many

nations, been an ever-receding mirage. It is clear that

these noble aspirations need some backing, some

stiffening, in their implementation.

Some 2,500 years ago a great teacher was born in

Asia. He was born a prince. He renounced the world and

roamed the forests in search of truth until he received

enlightenment. Let me recall that Buddhism was first

established in the central plain of the River Ganges, just

south of the Himalayas. From that beginning, at one time

or another in the course of its history, the message of the

Enlightened One spread to large areas of India, Pakistan

and Afghanistan, to Sri Lanka, China and Japan, to

Indonesia, Korea, Laos and Viet Nam, and to Myanmar

and Thailand. I state this not with any sense of

triumphalism, but to note that this enormous expansion

29

took place in peace. No battles were fought, no cities

besieged and no crusades commenced to further the

expansion of Buddhism. And when, in accordance with the

Buddha's teaching that all things are impermanent, the tide

receded, no battles were fought, no cities besieged and no

crusades commenced to stem that tide. For all of us who

are concerned with statecraft, this holds a fundamental

lesson.

I would like to quote in this connection from the great

Buddhist Emperor Asoka, who, as the Assembly knows,

underwent a radical change of heart through contact with

the Dhamma. In his often-quoted thirteenth rock edict at

Kalsi, he proclaimed:

“And for the following purpose has this rescript on

morality been written, namely, in order that the sons

and grandsons who may be born to me should not

think that a fresh conquest ought to be made; that, if

a conquest does please them, they should take pleasure

in mercy and light punishments; and that they should

regard the conquest by morality as the only true

conquest”.

Not only the freedom of thought, but also the

tolerance allowed by the Buddha is astonishing to the

student of the history of religions. Asoka, following this

noble example of tolerance and understanding, honoured

and supported all other religions in his vast empire.

The Buddha was just as clear on politics, war and

peace. It is well-known that Buddhism advocates and

preaches non-violence and peace as its universal message

and does not approve of any kind of violence or destruction

of life. According to Buddhism, there is nothing that can be

called a “just war”, which is only a false term coined and

put into circulation to justify and excuse hatred, cruelty,

violence and massacre. Who decides what is just or unjust?

The mighty and the victorious are “just” and the weak and

the defeated are “unjust”. Buddhism does not accept this

position.

As the Buddha says:

“The victor breeds hatred and the defeated lies down

in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat

is happy and peaceful”.

The only conquest that brings peace and happiness is self-

conquest:

“One may conquer millions in battle, but he who

conquers himself — only one — is the greatest of

the conquerors.”

Buddhist philosophy contains much more of

relevance to statesmen. In the past decade the observance

of human rights has been a source of great concern and

debate in international forums. In this connection, I would

like to quote the words of a scholar who has examined

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article by

article, from a Buddhist perspective. He said:

“The importance of this Declaration as a common

standard of achievement for all peoples and all

nations is now acknowledged everywhere. From the

religious angle, it is possible to state that in this

Declaration lie enshrined certain values and norms

emphasized by the major religions of the world.

Though not directly expressed, the basic principles

of the Declaration are supported and reinforced by

these religious traditions, and among them the

contribution of the Buddhist tradition, to say the

least, is quite outstanding”.

Today the teachings of the Buddha are studied and

practised worldwide, and nowhere more avidly than in the

West. It is said that there are over 150 million known

adherents of Buddhism in the world today. But if one

took into account the vast uncounted numbers of those

who practise Buddhism, that figure would be immensely

higher.

Allow me, therefore, to suggest to this Assembly

that as the third millennium of human history opens it

would be fitting to recall the immense contribution to the

understanding of the human condition that the teachings

of the Buddha made 2,500 years ago. I suggest further

that it would be appropriate to honour the Buddha by

declaring that Wesak, the sacred day for Buddhists the

world over, be observed as a special day by the United

Nations. Wesak marks the three most important events in

the life of the Buddha: his birth, his attainment of

enlightenment and his passing away, all occurring on the

full-moon day of the month of May. This was the

recommendation made by an international Buddhist

conference held in Colombo last November and attended

by delegates from 26 countries. With the permission of

the President, a draft resolution to this effect, sponsored

by a number of countries, will be introduced in the

General Assembly at its current session. The Government

of Sri Lanka commends this draft resolution to the

attention of the General Assembly.

30