Namibia, 2000

This is neither the place

nor the time for me to repeat what my head of State

and I have said in speeches regarding most of the

critical national, regional and international issues. On

those issues Namibia's position is unchanged, and my

views remain valid. There are, however, some specific

matters that I feel require reiteration. That is what I am

going to do today.

Not too long ago in these corridors, an

unprecedented 150 heads of State and Government

participated in the historic Millennium Summit, which

was appropriately dubbed “We the peoples: the role of

the United Nations in the twenty-first century”. The

Millennium Declaration, which was the result of that

concerted effort to meet the daunting challenges of this

century with boldness and courage and in a truly global

united front, is destined take its place alongside the

7

Charter of the United Nations as one of the most

seminal documents of all time. In responding to the

peoples' fervent clarion call to redefine and vigorously

support the United Nations mandates and programmes,

and to meet the challenges of HIV/AIDS, malaria and

other diseases that threaten to decimate our populations

while leaving millions of others too weak to derive

value from life, the world leaders undertook before the

whole world to save humanity from the scourge of war,

fear and want.

The citizens of the world paid witness to the

sober promises of the Millennium Summit. They wait

in earnest for Member States to make good on the

pledges made in the Millennium Declaration. They, the

peoples, as our ultimate constituencies, are indeed the

ones we must serve. However, they are sceptical

because of failures to make good on previous pledges.

Yet they expect us to implement the undertakings we

made at the Summit, committing whatever resources of

material or of the heart are called for. For our part,

therefore, we must find the collective political will to

mobilize the necessary resources to implement the

commitments. We must also reconnect with the passion

that drove the leaders of the world, determined to spare

humanity the devastation of war and deprivation, to

found the United Nations.

In responding to this clarion call, Member States

must forge a new global partnership between the

wealthy and powerful nations and those whose present

circumstances leave them mired in the seemingly

intractable maze of a merry-go-round type of

development. The North must be gracious and

generous, and give enough of what has been acquired

from global resources to assist poor and weak countries

to help propel them into the orbit of sustainable and

irreversible social and economic growth.

For its part, the South must not only take sober

stock of our present challenges, but also devote energy

and creativity to genuinely engage all our countries in a

common effort at social development and human

security. To do so, we must rise above the temptation to

settle scores through armed conflict; place the will and

genius of our peoples at the helm of national

reconstruction; and give prominence to the credo

written in stone on the wall which adorns the courtyard

adjacent to the General Assembly, to turn our swords

into ploughshares. It is the marriage of this dual

commitment of the wealthy and strong, and the

presently poor and weak nations, which carries in its

womb the child of a new world, aglow in global peace,

development and prosperity.

Alongside the Millennium Summit were other

major activities of great importance at the United

Nations and elsewhere in New York. The Security

Council conducted its own high-level consultations,

culminating in a categorical commitment, especially to

Africa, towards development, peace and security on the

continent. The conference of presiding officers of the

world's parliaments resolved to work closely with the

United Nations in pursuit of people-centred goals. The

World Peace Summit, which brought together religious

leaders from practically all faiths, in its declaration on

a commitment to global peace, in addition to

recognizing gender equality, declared all religions to be

equal and condemned any violence perpetrated in the

name of religion. The non-governmental organizations,

which in their summit earlier in May had called for a

global solidarity in which corporations would

demonstrate a greater sense of social responsibility,

especially in the pursuit of the benefits of

globalization, reaffirmed their advocacy for social

change in their Department of Public Information/Non-

Governmental Organization Forum in August.

Together, participants in all these gatherings sought to

help redefine the pivotal role of the United Nations and

all other world organizations in the new millennium in

uplifting the peoples of the world.

The active role of grass-roots organizations, both

in their own conference and in their interaction with all

the other conferences, is a clear sign that “We the

Peoples” are actually now firmly reclaiming our

legitimate right to be heard wherever States are

discussing a new beginning in human relations and the

future of the United Nations — our common House.

Bearing this in mind, the world's leaders made a

special commitment to Africa to implement special

measures to address the challenges of poverty

eradication and sustainable development through such

actions as debt cancellation, increased investment and

greater access to markets and technology. All human

footprints start with the first lonely step.

We had witnessed a robust and generous spirit of

teamwork on the part of Member States in preparing

for the General Assembly's Millennium Summit and

galvanizing a partnership for a successful outcome. In

the fullness of time, it all came together, and we got it

right, to the satisfaction of all. It was collaboration

8

rather than competition. Thorns and all, what a

beautiful rose it turned out to be.

In Africa, we say that no one man can put his

hands around a baobab tree. It requires many hands

joined together to form a circle around that proverbial

tree. I thank all my collaborators. We are all winners,

and the integrity of the United Nations does not just

remain intact, but is enhanced. I remember, though,

what my President and Co-Chairperson of the

Millennium Summit, Mr. Sam Nujoma, stressed in his

closing statement:

“[W]e have adopted a historic Declaration with a

vision for the future ... The Declaration in itself

will not put bread on [the] tables [of the peoples

of the world], stop the wars, erase poverty ... We

cannot, therefore, afford to go back home from

here and continue business as usual.” (A/55/PV.8)

That is the question and, indeed, the challenge for the

United Nations and the global community. His

counterpart, the President of Finland, Ms. Tarja

Halonen, echoed those sentiments in her own closing

speech.

Sir, against the backdrop of those profound

circumstances and events relating to the Millennium

Summit, we welcome a fortunate coincidence which

has set the stage for your unanimous election as

President of the fifty-fifth session of the General

Assembly, together with the eminent members of your

Bureau. I congratulate you all warmly and assure you

of Namibia's steadfast cooperation.

In my acceptance speech of 14 September 1999, I

complained about a creeping but steady derogation of

the General Assembly's functions and powers, contrary

to the letter and spirit of the relevant provisions of the

Charter of the United Nations. This situation has hardly

changed for the better during the past year. If anything,

the encroachment has intensified. I have therefore

decided to speak up, so that we no longer take things

for granted in the ensuing months.

I found the Office of the President of the General

Assembly to be the main target of this unacceptable

denigration. In the animal kingdom, the predator goes

for the head or the jugular to incapacitate its prey.

Well, that seems to be the case here as well. For some

time now — prior to my tenure of office — we had

been discussing practical ways and means of

strengthening the Office of the President to ensure its

capacity and effectiveness.

In light of this, I would suggest – subject, of

course, to the President's disposition – an early

planning meeting involving the President, the

Chairman of the Fifth Committee and the Chairman of

the Advisory Committee on Administrative and

Budgetary Questions to review this situation and to act

upon what has already been agreed, including adequate

resources for the Office of the President. No President

of the General Assembly should be subjected to the

whims of faceless bureaucrats as if he or she were

asking for personal favours.

In this context, two key paragraphs in the

Millennium Declaration are apropos. First, paragraph

30 underscores the commitment to

“reaffirm the central position of the General

Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-

making and representative organ of the United

Nations, and to enable it to play that role

effectively”. (resolution 55/2, para. 30)

This is a clear and categorical reaffirmation of the

centrality of the Assembly, notwithstanding the

existing and desirable division of labour or

complementary functions among the principal organs.

Secondly, in paragraph 31, the heads of State and

Government collectively state:

“We request the General Assembly to

review on a regular basis the progress made in

implementing the provisions of this Declaration,

and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic

reports for consideration by the General

Assembly and as a basis for further action.”

(ibid., para. 31)

I would make another suggestion. Under the

President's authority, the Bureau should act as an

executive arm of the Office of the President,

superintending the work of the Assembly and

interacting vertically with the heads of the other United

Nations bodies. We always have a solid team in the

Bureau consisting of the President, 21 Vice-Presidents

and the Chairpersons of the six Main Committees for

this crucial task. I was privileged to have a team of

able ambassadors and, at times, even higher

personalities assisting me, to all of whom I remain

grateful. The Bureau should be formalized as a

political mechanism. What we should be striving for is

9

a formalized system of regular consultations and better

coordination of mandates and action in which the right

hand knows what the left hand is doing at all times.

While I will leave these hallowed halls soon and

return to my duties as Namibia's Minister of Foreign

Affairs, Information and Broadcasting, my heart and

soul will always be walking the routines of the General

Assembly. Namibia's celebrated case for self-

determination, freedom and achievement of

independence and the greater part of my own personal

story — perhaps a bit unlike that of any of my

predecessors as Assembly Presidents — are written on

these majestic walls. Indeed, it is actually here and

nowhere else that one can appreciate the roots and the

systemic evolution of the United Nations itself.

Now I want to express some views of my own

about the latest buzzword: globalization. In the

process, I will also respond to what some say – that the

peoples of the third world should not run away in fright

from globalization. Frankly speaking, globalization is

merely a new name for an old, cruel and unjust system

which was imposed willy-nilly upon the peoples of the

third world in the past. Globalization is at least 500

years old in the case of Africa. As someone bluntly put

it, “globalization is the reformation of what we used to

call capitalist imperialism”. That is what he said; I

think he has a point.

That globalization forcibly introduced the

iniquities of the slave trade, colonial oppression, the

dispossession of land, racial bigotry and the destruction

of our precious lives and cultures is a matter of

historical record. We cannot be blamed for harbouring

painful memories of the marauding usurpers from

Europe peddling the virtues of a civilizing mission.

Those uninvited intruders anchored their merchant

ships along the coast and put up their foreign flags.

Next, millions of people ended up dead, others were

shipped off to the diaspora, while the rest became

victims of a brutal system of colonialism. That, too, is

a matter of record.

The more the benefits of globalization are

advertised, the more all of it sounds hypocritical and

self-serving. Nobody is suggesting that we must run

away from globalization. At the same time, we will

keep reminding ourselves of the lessons of history lest

we forget the ultimate truth that the lion will not lie

down with the lamb. Mind you, industrialization was

not bloodless or painless either.

If perchance globalization is to have genuine

efficacy, then we in the third world, who constitute by

far the majority of the globe, must infuse it with our

own vision, our wisdom, our sense of equity and fair

play, the essence of the hard lessons we have learned

from our history and experience. In such an

eventuality, we will have to redesign the basic

paradigm of globalization.

On the one hand, it is said that many African

States are at risk of missing out on the opportunities

offered by globalization; on the other hand, Africans

are repeatedly being told to find answers themselves to

African problems. Well, which is it? This was never

actually said about any other continent or peoples at

their worst hour of imminent disaster. I must confess

that I do not know how Europe survived the black

plague, which decimated its population, killing many

hundreds of thousands. But I know, at least, something

about contemporary European history of the past 50

years. I think of the devastation and misery in that

continent after the Second World War. Concerted

political will, massive resources and a gigantic plan of

action were put in place to save Europe. It was the

famous Marshall Plan that we Africans were forced to

read about in schools that did it. Europe was pulled

back from a precipice because of that comprehensive

and coordinated action of solidarity and today is

building a strong Union together. It is clear that there

was no idea of abandoning Europe to its own fate. But

it was not only that.

There is another instructive example, that of the

remarkable Alliance for Progress. That laudable

initiative helped Latin America to emerge from an

economic and social morass and restored in the people

an empowering confidence for the future. Today, we

see the great Southern Cone Common Market

(MERCOSUR) and other important regional economic

and trade groupings fostering economic growth, full

employment and the generation of wealth for the

benefit all in that vital part of the world. For me, that

represents the true meaning of human brotherhood and

“prosper thy neighbour”. Africa's key Western

cooperating partners should not hold the view that

those two examples are unique circumstances from the

remote past or that they are far removed from the

hardships and misery that Africa and its peoples are

facing today.

Only when pledges made by world leaders are

translated into concrete programmes and substantial

10

resources are made available to achieve the time-bound

targets set by the Millennium Summit can we in Africa

take comfort in and draw strength from the recent

inspiring commitments. Alhough nobility of mind is a

necessary prelude to magnanimity, performance is the

only vindication of its efficacy. This is because human

beings are not known for mental quantum leaps,

disregarding embedded social consciousness. Humans

tend to hold on to painful memories and to keep

reminding their tormentors of their obligation. Hence,

the persistent demands in Africa, in Europe, in Asia

and in other places for atonement, reparations and

compensation and insistence on the return of all stolen

cultural artworks, precious relics and sacred icons from

abroad to their place of origin — lock, stock and barrel.

Africans, who were wronged more than, or at

least as much as, any other group of people, are

legitimately entitled to justice on political, legal, and

humanitarian grounds. Now is the time to settle that

unfinished business and moral deficit.

My good friend said the other day that the best

form of diplomacy is to tell the truth. I have some

truthful things I want to direct to my own camp — the

third world. My remarks will be of a general nature and

will likely annoy some of my friends. But in Africa,

candour, no matter how distressing it can sometimes

be, is not only a form of democracy, but also a

language for protecting and strengthening the family.

So I am sure that they, too, will understand, because all

of it comes from my heart.

I believe we urgently need to review our priorities

and map out a new strategy in order to effectively, and

in unity, deal with the battles ahead. Once again, we

must stand up for our legitimate and just rights. My

brother Foreign Minister from a small Caribbean State

has pointed out that “there are new forms of war

currently being waged on the small, the weak and the

vulnerable” in the countries of the South. While this is

a confirmation of the obvious, the situation is quite

serious.

Ironically, in the South we are waging

unconscionable and destructive wars against one

another, militarily invading and occupying

neighbouring States under the pretext of security or

alleged historical reasons. In the process, we create, by

omission or by commission, convenient troubled

waters for outsiders to fish in. Nations are burning, and

peoples are dying from bullets, hunger and infectious

diseases at the same time. We are destroying ourselves.

This must stop. We really have nobody to blame but

ourselves. Rationalizations and excuses made after a

fait accompli stink to high heaven. We must regroup

and concentrate on development, poverty eradication,

regional cooperation and integration. We have agreed

to promote a culture of peace, to practise tolerance and

to enlarge opportunities for peaceful coexistence. The

Havana South Summit and its plan of action gave us an

impetus to push ahead in unity and solidarity for our

common survival. The people are tired of war; they

want food security and life-saving human progress.

They want creative leisure and the right to a coherent

and planned future for their families and themselves,

devoid of fear and heart-rending traumas of violence.

We have before us the current report of the

Working Group — the full title is unduly

cumbersome — which, for more than six years now,

has been dealing with the reform and increase in the

membership of the Security Council. When the report

is debated, Namibia will give its specific views on its

content. Suffice it for me to take this opportunity to

heartily commend and congratulate Ambassadors John

de Saram of Sri Lanka and Hans Dahlgren of Sweden,

who served as Vice-Chairmen under my leadership, for

their total devotion and hard work that produced that

thoughtful report.

I strongly urge Member States to read the report

carefully and reflect on the constructive proposals that

are offered in it. While the negotiations on reform must

continue, and given the fact that we now have a much

clearer picture in respect of the specific open questions,

we should revisit the earlier — all or nothing —

“package deal” approach. The reform process cannot

just continue ad infinitum.

It was by no means meant to become an end in

itself. We ought to take a cue from the urgings of the

world leaders to move on and show concrete progress

as soon as possible. The emphasis on the role of the

United Nations in the twenty-first century necessarily

means that we complete the overall reform without

further delay, so that the United Nations can perform

that role effectively. For the developing countries, the

hour is already too late. We have nothing to gain by

dragging our feet.

I would like also, in just a few words, to express

my astonishment about the contradictory comments

that I heard recently about the question of good

governance. Domestically, in the developing countries,

good governance has been turned into a sort of a rigid

dogma by foreign Powers. But when we call for rapid

democratization of and transparency in international

relations, open trade and financial rules and good

governance, they simply ignore our views willy-nilly.

What do we make of this paradox?

At least we have now agreed that there is no

commonly accepted definition and practice of good

governance anywhere. This was established during the

consultations for the Millennium Summit's

preparations. It is therefore better for us from now on

to put more emphasis on transparent and accountable

governance, based on the rule of law, while we

continue debating its essential properties that are

acceptable to all.

At this stage, I will touch on some issues that

require reiterating for clarity's sake. To begin with,

South-North dialogue encompasses a broad field, from

political and diplomatic exchanges through trade,

poverty eradication, investment, technology,

industrialization, capacity-building and financing for

development to the empowering of people.

A recent cover story in Time magazine featured

our esteemed Secretary-General. It called him a

dreamer. But, to my mind, in today's world of doomed

pragmatists and cynics who try to defy any belief in the

possibility of a better world for all of us, how

refreshing it is that the United Nations is led by an

African who is not afraid to dream! In a variation on

the lyrics of a popular song, what the world needs now

are bold dreamers whose knowledge of the challenges

to humanity cannot be questioned, but who believe in

the capacity of men and women to rise above their best,

to move even farther beyond the horizons of human

capability.

That said, questions relating to development,

politics, economics, finance and security unavoidably

overlap. So also do the challenges of world peace,

human rights, human development and human security,

social change and prosperity. We cannot, therefore,

avoid stressing inclusive and interdependent global

governance that militates against war, fear and want.

Only in this way will all of us be able to partake

together in a culture of peace, dialogue, sharing and the

common advancement of humanity.

In such a kinder and inclusive world that we wish

to live in, a dreadful notion of humanitarian

intervention, by whatever name, does not fit in. Many

of us expressed strong reactions against it as a

dangerous idea when it surfaced last year. Namibia

remains unconvinced and will continue to oppose any

form of unilateral humanitarian intervention outside the

Charter. Whether we like it or not, this is still a world

of diktat by the rich and the powerful against the poor,

the weak and the vulnerable. The South is incapable of

initiating any humanitarian intervention in the North.

But the reverse is not only possible; it can be an

ominous certainty. Can Kuwait, Cyprus, Saint Lucia or

Namibia really dare launch any humanitarian

intervention anywhere in the world? They just cannot.

Quite simply, in a world of lopsided military might,

humanitarian intervention is yet another code-name for

colonization. This issue is on the agenda and will no

doubt be debated again in the Assembly. Namibia will

air its strong views when we come to that.

The Charter shows the best way forward to ensure

the maintenance of international peace and security.

What we, the Member States, should concentrate on,

therefore, is to speed up the tardy process of reforming,

restructuring and democratizing our Organization the

better to pursue its lofty goals and to implement the

resolutions and decisions that enjoy overwhelming

consensus.

This, in a way, brings up the excellent and timely

Brahimi report (A/55/305) on United Nations peace

operations. The report constitutes a major building

block which can provide a basis for discussing and

resolving all relevant issues and ideas for concerted

efforts in the field of preventive diplomacy, conflict

resolution and all other challenges and problems of

peacekeeping and peace-building.

The next subject I want to deal with is the

recently signed United Nations Global Compact with

transnational corporations, this time initiated by the

United Nations. We in Namibia, a country which

actively promotes smart partnerships and win-win

outcomes for government and business, labour and

other key players in civil society, see this move as a

welcome beginning. However, as is said, trust but

verify.

Not too long ago the United Nations used to

maintain at Headquarters a watchdog centre for

transnational corporations to monitor their nefarious

global activities and sinister dirty tricks against the

12

interests of the people. It was closed down for reasons

not yet known.

Many of us from the developing countries ought

to remember the call by our leaders in the 1970s for a

new international economic order and what became of

it. The United Nations Centre on Transnational

Corporations was a sincere undertaking to establish a

data bank and provide Member States with relevant

information for follow-up and decision-making. The

call for a new international economic order was the

South's version of globalization. Yet our leaders were

discredited and the initiative itself was

unceremoniously killed. Its replacement is already

wreaking havoc on our slender prospects for

meaningful economic autonomy.

Today, out there in the real world, many armies of

grassroots organizations and progressive trade unions

are back again on the streets demanding the

democratization of international economic and trade

relations, transparency, accountability, justice and fair

play for the poor, the weak and the vulnerable. This is

not a passing wave, but a telling sign of things yet to

come.

The United Nations should, therefore, avoid

being caught in the middle of the crossfire. The

situation requires vigilance and leadership to ensure

that the corporations do not entangle the Organization

in their unsavoury dealings, as some of them are

already being accused of doing. I am aware of the

written commitments, agreed rules and broad principles

in the Compact. But that is one thing. That aside, this is

only the beginning, and things will perhaps go wrong

down the road. I myself encouraged constructive

partnership between the United Nations and the private

sector. That does not mean, however, that all that

glitters is gold.

One more matter of deep interest to my country,

and indeed to Africa, is information and

communication technology — ICT. The information

and communication technology revolution is the most

significant social, political and economic phenomenon

since the Industrial Revolution. Its ability to transform

societies is commonly acknowledged. Several weeks

ago the Economic and Social Council summit, held

here at United Nations Headquarters, focused totally on

it.

Yet, ironically, and to some extent in an uncanny

way, this economic panacea has been presented to

Africa not as a tool for self-development and jump-

starting global competitiveness, but as yet another

“crime of incapacity” used to further overburden an

already embattled people.

Our challenge, the challenge to all of us here, and

to all those who have had a head start in mobilizing

this new capacity for the creation of wealth and a better

world, is: what can we do, what must we do, to enable

Africa and other developing countries to gain access to

the tools of information and communication

technology, so that we can take ownership of our own

social development and achieve full employment and

prosperity?

Those who control this powerhouse must act

quickly and generously to share the benefits of this

magic wand, especially since the sons and daughters of

Africa and of the developing world are in fact among

the major players in creating this new knowledge. To

those who may begrudge Africa's access to information

and communication technology, I say, “Just think: if

information and communication technology enables

Africa to create wealth rather than manage poverty,

then in a few years Africa will be so developed that

you will no longer have to endure the guilt of turning

us away from your front steps.”

In thanking the Secretary-General and his loyal

Deputy, Ms. Louise Frechette, for their unstinting

support and encouragement, I would be remiss if I did

not also mention the General Assembly's chief

stewards and staff members for their expertise and hard

work. I extend the same sentiments to the security and

protocol officers for rendering such outstanding

professional services. My heartfelt gratitude goes to

one and all.

In conclusion, for Namibia the year 2000 brought

rededication to service, celebration and thanksgiving. It

meant awesome responsibilities in the General

Assembly, including during the Millennium Summit; in

the Security Council; in the World Health Assembly;

and lately in the chairmanship of the Southern Africa

Development Community (SADC), our subregional

body. One needs allies, friends and partners for all this

to happen, and we are lucky to have many of them

throughout the world. We sincerely express our

immense indebtedness to all of them.

I know that I have been long-winded. I had a few

things to say.

13