Malaysia, 1995

Let me first congratulate

you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the fiftieth

session of the General Assembly. I wish you a successful

presidency. Appreciation is also due to your distinguished

predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Amara Essy, who provided

the leadership during the forty-ninth session of the General

Assembly.

The General Assembly is meeting in the midst of

hectic schedules of events to commemorate the fiftieth

anniversary of the United Nations. Some of us have become

preoccupied with these celebrations. We should ask whether

these activities are merely media events or could seriously

contribute to a better United Nations. Will the high point

of the fiftieth anniversary be reduced to a special

commemorative meeting condensed into a declaration of

good intentions which no one seriously cares for, or

should we resist the tendency to celebrate, to expend

millions on galas and parties and to eulogize through

rhetorical speeches the anniversary of the establishment of

the United Nations? After all we cannot even answer the

basic questions of where we stand and what the United

Nations is, whipping boy or serious, enduring player.

Admittedly it is easier to raise questions than to find

answers. But these questions must be raised and they

deserve to be answered. In its fiftieth year the United

Nations system finds itself criticized for being unable to

handle basic and critical political, economic and social

issues. Despite earlier hopes of a just world order

following the end of the cold war, what we still see is a

United Nations which dances to the grating music of the

major Powers, in total disregard for the high principles

and objectives pledged at its formation. We will have to

conclude that the narrow national interest of the few is

still what the United Nations is all about. Also, the

principle which largely moves the major Powers, that

what they need for themselves must influence their

dealings with the needs of others, is fully operative,

making nonsense of interdependence, social compassion

and justice.

And so we must forget the promise of an

international political leadership that can collectively

come to grips with the myriad issues for a shared survival.

Confrontation between States, intra-State conflicts,

economic and military threats, the dehumanizing effects of

poverty: all these are heightened rather than diminished by

the end of the cold war. The contradictory impulses of

interdependence and isolationism are more evident than

ever before. Not only is humanitarianism drying up fast, but

what survives is replete with conditionalities. The United

Nations presents a shattered image with a threadbare moral

authority, despite the important early successes in

decolonization and the subsequent elimination of apartheid.

The victors of 1945 have clung tenaciously to the

levers of power. They control the high ground, exercising

influence and power as nakedly as when they were colonial

Powers. Only the masks have changed. The multilateral

organizations created on the eve of war’s end were and still

are structured to further their economic interests and the

pursuit of their strategic political goals. The Security

Council, the World Bank and the International Monetary

Fund have merely become the instruments of power

perpetuation. Less than six months ago, we witnessed the

use of the United Nations to push through, draconian-like,

the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. Before the ink was

dry, some of the nuclear Powers proceeded to test their

diabolical weapons. What, may I ask, qualifies some

countries to possess the means of mass destruction in

perpetuity? It is time that the nuclear-weapon States

committed themselves to nuclear disarmament through a

programmed reduction of their nuclear arsenals within a

specific time-frame, beginning with the immediate cessation

of all nuclear tests and culminating in their total

elimination. Soon it may be too costly and too late.

Perversely, the major Powers not only continue to

compete in developing ever more destructive conventional

weapons but also compete to sell arms. And when some

developing countries buy arms the Western-controlled

media accuse them of indulging in arms races.

We seem to have inherited a world in which moral

considerations have no real role to play in which acts of

realpolitik have no moral consequences. Tears appear to be

shed about the human tragedies in Bosnia, Rwanda, Liberia,

Somalia and Chechnya, but many have become desensitized

to the horrors that flash across our screens. The Charter

incorporating the idealism and dreams of 1945 is more

honoured in violations of it than in adherence to it. Tell us:

How have the principles of the Charter on the non-use of

force and the illegality of claiming territory acquired by

aggression been of help to the Bosnians? What protection

or solace has the genocide Convention been to those

slaughtered in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and Chechnya?

The lesson for the peoples of these countries is clear: no

international order or international ethos will be defended

unless the major Powers see that their vital interests are

at risk.

The United Nations has been party to the double talk

in Bosnia, insisting that morality has no place in peace-

keeping since the impartiality that peace-keepers had to

maintain required them to eschew making any judgement

about the rights and wrongs of the situation. I ask the

United Nations whether there can be a middle ground

where genocide and “ethnic cleansing” are concerned. I

ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations whether

he is obliged to defend the moral principles in the United

Nations Charter or whether he should console the dying

and the bereaved by saying that there are others elsewhere

who are suffering worse fates.

Is there not, in the context of the larger picture, a

special role for the United Nations to provide

international leadership? Clearly the major Powers have

failed to provide leadership, choosing only to act in

furtherance of their national or domestic political

interests. They continue to harp on human rights and the

sanctity of human life but they act only when they run no

risk.

Admittedly, blame must also be apportioned to many

of us in the third world. Some of us have led our people

down the path of despair and misery. With the demise of

colonialism there was the promise of freedom and

development. Yet many succumbed to the temptations of

creature comfort, failing to further the rights and welfare

of our own people. But then, when we were colonies, the

only form of government we knew was authoritarian

colonialism. It is too much to expect some of us, at the

midnight flag-lowering, suddenly to become democratic

and sophisticated.

The threat of a brutalized world has never been more

evident than in the Serb programme of “ethnic cleansing”

in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the massacres in Rwanda.

For a long time the major Powers were opposed to taking

strong measures against the Serbs. We are seeing

belatedly some sense of purpose in the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO) bombings and efforts to

negotiate a solution. However, we should be cautious

about rushing towards solutions that reward aggression

and genocide. It is possible that some in the West and in

the United Nations had longed for Bosnia’s quick defeat.

It would have saved them from making any decision. But

2

the Bosnians refused to oblige. In Rwanda the European

troops withdrew when the massacres began. And in Somalia

failure to understand the situation led to the victims fighting

their United Nations saviours.

The United Nations Secretariat must take some of the

blame for all these brutalities. In Rwanda it truly shirked its

duty, while in Bosnia it sent in a protection force which

was instructed not to protect the Bosnians. Why it should

be called the United Nations Protection Force

(UNPROFOR) has been a mystery until recently. It was

there to protect itself. It makes a distinction between

peace-keeping and peace-enforcement. If there is peace to

keep, why are military forces needed? Are not the forces

put there because of the possibility of breaches of the

peace? And when there are breaches the forces must stop

them, if peace-keeping is to be meaningful. But, instead,

when peace is broken the United Nations threatens to

withdraw and leave the victims to their fate.

Fortunately, in Palestine, another historical flash point,

efforts continue to be made towards durable peace. That

peace process must result in a Palestinian homeland, a

viable State at peace with its neighbours. The attempts to

weaken the present Palestinian leadership by undermining

its credibility will only result in the rise of extremism and

a protracted and bloody intra- Palestinian conflict which

will spill over into Israel and elsewhere.

The absence of international leadership and

commitment is evident in the area of development as well.

The rhetoric of development is increasingly devoid of

meaningful content. The North has turned its back on

commitments relating to development assistance. Yet such

is the concern for the survival of insects and plant life that

human development must be stopped if it is suspected it

might endanger a few animals or plants. That there are

plenty of the same species elsewhere is considered

irrelevant. And so one-fifth of the world’s population

remains mired in poverty, having been denied development

assistance by the rich and the powerful. The latter have

retreated into their regional clubs and cosy arrangements for

perpetuating unconscionable levels of consumption. Some

of the countries of the South have tried to pull themselves

up literally by their bootstraps. But the moment they appear

to succeed the carpet is pulled out from under their feet.

Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) privileges are

withdrawn and their records on human rights, democracy,

and so on, are scrutinized in order to obstruct their progress.

Some among the more successful countries of the

South have been enticed to join the rich and the strong, so

they may not lend what little strength they have to their

compatriots.

Commitment to the environment should not be

turned into an occasion for recrimination and the pointing

of fingers. Worse, it should not be politically

instrumentalized to disadvantage the South. Development

can take place without irreparable damage to the

environment. Forcing the developing countries to remain

undeveloped in order to preserve the environment for the

rich is manifestly unfair. Yet the environmental obstacles

placed in the way of the poor South will do just that,

beggaring the poor to enrich the already rich.

Poverty itself creates an environment that is as

damaging to humanity as any other kind of environmental

pollution. Obviously, we need to determine our priorities.

Do we keep the poor permanently poor so that the rich

can enjoy the environment, or do we sacrifice the

environment a little in the interest of relieving poverty?

We in Malaysia accept that economic development

should not be at the expense of other groups or future

generations. Environmental sustainability, social equity

and a culture that allows for the fulfilment of human

needs must replace the culture of materialism. The

Western consumer society, which is spreading world

wide, requires ever-increasing consumption to keep

production and profits continually rising. For this, more

fuel is needed, and the trend in the use of fossil fuels in

recent years is alarming. Yet very little is being done to

curb such wasteful use of a depleting resource, while the

development of renewable resources, such as hydropower,

meets with all kinds of objections. Progressively

industrializing Malaysia has the capacity and the

resources to design and implement a model of

development sensitive to the needs and cultural values of

developing countries without imitating the flawed Western

model. We ask only that misguided crusaders should keep

out. These modern-day imitations of the Communist

agitators would do well to look to their own countries’

wasteful consumption and carbon-dioxide emissions.

Social disintegration is a serious problem as the

world’s population becomes more urbanized. This is not

helped by the West’s seeking to impose its moral values.

The institutions that hold society together are now being

undermined. At the Beijing Women’s Summit, despite a

consensus cobbled together to alleviate the sufferings of

women, the mad quest for personal freedom took one

more tradition-bashing step. People, it seems, cannot be

free unless they have sexual freedom, a freedom that

3

rejects the inhibitions of traditional and religious values, of

marriage and family as institutions of society. Sexual

freedom will render fidelity meaningless as much as it

renders marriages anachronistic. The new liberalism extends

to a new definition of the family, which is to include

homosexual pairs, unmarried women with children by

unknown fathers, groups of men and women living together

with no fixed partners, and many other combinations.

If the West wants to be liberal and sexually free, that

is its right. What is wrong is the attempt to impose its

morality, or lack of it, on the rest of the world, and in

Beijing that was what it tried to do. The United Nations

should not lend itself to this kind of undemocratic disregard

for the rights of others.

Of late there has been much talk about reform of the

United Nations. Clearly, there is a need for this after 50

years of the United Nations carrying the tattered baggage of

the last world war. Surely the results of that war cannot be

reflected in the structure and procedures of the United

Nations for ever. It has to end some time, and the fiftieth

anniversary is as good a time as any for burying the relics

of past follies.

Since democracy seems to have displaced religion as

a faith, it is fitting that there should be democratic reforms

in the United Nations. Some of those countries which had

vested themselves with infallibility and permanency have

now become second-raters. New players have emerged that

should be accorded recognition. A more equitable

representation on the Security Council is a must. This

means that permanent seats should be given to regions,

possibly determined by a regional mechanism.

The veto power should be dropped. Under no

circumstances must the Security Council be made an

instrument of any one country.

Reform must also extend to the financing of the

United Nations. It is wholly unacceptable that Member

States, especially the rich ones, should fall into arrears with

impunity and yet exercise special rights and influence. The

membership rules must be applied to one and all. New

bases for assessment should be laid down, taking into

consideration the wealth, or lack of it, of Members.

Various global taxation schemes, including modest

levies on global air travel, a tax on global speculative flows

of capital, a tax on the exploitation of mankind’s common

assets on the seabed and a tax on the trade in weapons of

war, have all been proposed. Of those, the last one, based

on the principle that he who profits from the tools of war

must contribute to the maintenance of peace, merits

urgent attention and adoption.

Reform of the United Nations also requires the

cleansing of the bureaucratic Augean stables in the

Secretariat. The morale of the international civil service

is at its lowest ebb. The excesses and the fat must be

trimmed, but failure to do so must not be used as an

excuse for not paying dues or for opting out.

It is heartening to note that the United Nations

Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and

other United Nations economic agencies have now

acknowledged that linking trade and non-trade issues

serves no useful purpose either for the developed or for

the developing countries. Unemployment in the developed

countries is due not to workers’ in developing countries

working hard to compensate for their lack of other

competitive advantages, but, rather, to the profligate ways

of the developed nations, with their high wages and

unemployment benefits. Why it is assumed that workers

in developed countries would work when they are to be

paid for not working is a mystery on a par with the idea

that people would be happy and productive if the diligent

were paid as much as the indolent.

The reform of global institutions must encompass the

Bretton Woods institutions. Their energies and resources

must be channelled towards the battle against the

pollution caused by poverty worldwide. The Bretton

Woods institutions have to cease acting as debt collectors

for the mighty and the rich bankers, who, in turn, must

learn to live within the rules of their own creation, with

regard to taking commercial risks which go hand in hand

with the pursuit of gain. A return to their original

mandates — to promote balanced development, in the

case of the World Bank, and to enforce monetary and

fiscal responsibility in all countries, irrespective of their

status in the global economy — is a first priority. Reform

must include a re-evaluation of the governance

arrangements at the Bank and the Fund through a

realignment and reallocation of quotas and shareholdings

that take into account the changed structure of the world

economy. New arrangements for governance must

recognize the growing clout of the newly emerging

economies that now contribute to a rising share of global

output, to trade and to capital flows.

The debt millstone weighs heavily on the poor. This

burden must be eased, especially for the poorest nations of

Africa and Asia. Malaysia hopes that effective actions will

be taken forthwith, taking into account decisions made at

the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly on finding

a durable solution to the external-debt problem of

developing countries.

While bilateral debts extended by donor countries have

over the years been restructured and rescheduled — though

with humiliating conditions imposed by the Paris Club of

creditors — multilateral institutions, led by the World

Bank, have steadfastly refused to consider restructuring debt

owed to them. The World Bank continues to increase its

profit levels and amasses reserves which today stand in

excess of $16 billion. Why are these reserves, built from

payments by developing countries, not used for debt relief?

And why do we allow the intransigence of one or two

countries to preclude the issuance of special drawing rights

by the International Monetary Fund? These and other issues

must feature in a reform of the Bretton Woods institutions.

The conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the

establishment of the World Trade Organization offer a

glimmer of hope for rule-based trading relationships.

Malaysia applauds and welcomes the underlying principles,

and we pledge ourselves to play by the mutually agreed

undertakings.

Regrettably, powerful trading nations threaten, through

unilateral actions, to undermine the carefully negotiated

agreements. The deliberate creation of regional trading

blocs, the introduction of managed trade and the attempts

to link human rights, environmental considerations and

labour codes to trade are major threats which, if

implemented, would dim the hope of a free environment for

trade. We reject such attempts. The new protectionism will

return the world to a bygone era when trade wars led to

military confrontations.

Finally, we have the new threats with the advent of

the information age. The poor countries have long suffered

from biased reporting by the world media, controlled by the

developed world. Now the computer network created for

the spread of knowledge and information has become

polluted by the irresponsible dissemination of filth through

it. Someone is making money from this filth.

The world community must find a way to keep out

such filth and to provide for legal action to be taken against

its purveyors by aggrieved countries, even when they

broadcast from outside their borders. They should be

allowed to bring these miscreants to trial in the aggrieved

countries, under their laws. After all, we have already had

many instances of extraterritorial application of the laws

of some countries without so much as a by-your-leave.

Freedom of information is fine, but even in this age

of freedom we cannot allow morals to be completely

undermined in order to enrich the merchants of porn and

filth.

When all is said and done, we still have to admit

that the United Nations is the only truly multinational

Organization where the voices of small nations can be

heard. We support the United Nations, but we must

correct the tendency to make it an instrument of the rich

and the powerful. The United Nations must stand on the

side of the collective needs of people and nations in order

to serve all mankind.