Nauru, 2003

It gives me great

pleasure to deliver this statement on behalf of His

Excellency Rene Harris, President and Minister for

Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nauru, who had to

cancel his trip to New York at the last minute due to

pressing matters at home. President Harris has asked

me to convey to Mr. Julian Hunte warmest

congratulations on his assumption of the stewardship of

the Assembly. As a small island developing State,

Nauru is extremely proud to be associated with the

Caribbean Community on Mr. Hunte’s marvellous

achievement, which gives us hope that we in the

Pacific will also have the opportunity to preside over

the Assembly.

My delegation would like, through him, to

commend His Excellency Mr. Jan Kavan, President of

the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session, for

his excellent leadership and the great efforts that he

made, particularly in tackling the difficult issues that

have plagued the revitalization of the General

Assembly as the premier organ of the United Nations.

The President has pledged to continue the good work

that has been done in these areas, and he can count on

Nauru’s full cooperation.

Peace and security — or, more correctly, the lack

of it — is still the main focus of the United Nations 58

years after its inception. In the past 24 months, we have

seen the internationalization of terrorism manifest itself

out of a cocktail of hatred, desperation and fanaticism

that has spread its tentacles from the Middle East into

the international arena. It is unconventional,

clandestine, and indiscriminate with respect to its

victims. We are also seeing an increase in the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction after a

period of relative calm, and this is further exacerbating

the situation.

The sum of these two nightmarish threats is a

cause for concern, and States that feel uniquely

vulnerable to terrorist acts are considering the real

possibility of terrorists gaining access to weapons of

mass destruction. That scenario has forced such States

to develop the antidote of unilateral action primed with

a pre-emptive strike policy.

We saw it in action in Afghanistan and, six

months ago in Iraq, just as President Bush said we

would if the Security Council failed to walk the talk of

resolution 1441 (2002), which called for the

disarmament by Iraq of its weapons of mass

destruction. Nauru is disappointed that President Bush

did not refer in his statement last week to the status of

the coalition’s search for stockpiles of these weapons,

and we are puzzled as to why it is hard to find them

when intelligence indicated that the Iraqis could arm

and unleash them so as to hit the United Kingdom

within 45 minutes.

My delegation considers the antidote to which I

referred to be the catalyst in the new wave of nuclear

weapons proliferation, and it is not a coincidence that

the countries singled out as part of the “axis of evil”

are being accused of developing nuclear weapons.

Nauru joins the appeal to the countries concerned to

observe their obligations under the Treaty on the Non-

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to allow the

International Atomic Energy Agency to carry out

inspections and verify that nuclear weapons are not

being developed.

In all of this, we are certain of one thing: that the

major casualty of the current state of affairs is the

innocence of the United Nations, which was mortally

wounded in Baghdad when the lives of 22 dedicated

United Nations servants were lost, including that of the

22

revered Sergio Vieira de Mello, and more than 100

were injured.

The people of Nauru join the United Nations

family in mourning the victims of that tragedy, and our

heartfelt condolences go to the bereaved families. That

despicable act of terror has cast a shadow over the

safety and security of United Nations personnel

everywhere. The clarity of its emblem, which stood for

tolerance, hope and impartiality and which had acted as

a shield against attack, may have been blurred by its

subservient role to the administering force in Iraq.

In the light of the facts before us, Nauru fully

agrees with the assessment made by the Secretary-

General, Mr. Kofi Annan, in his bold and gutsy

statement that the Organization has “come to a fork in

the road” and that we are in a moment of time that is

“no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United

Nations was founded.” (A/58/PV.7, p. 3)

Nauru fully supports the proposal to establish a

high-level panel of eminent personalities to review

threats to peace and security and other global

challenges insofar as these may influence or be

connected with such threats. Nauru strongly believes in

multilateralism as a key tool in resolving contemporary

problems in all of their complexity.

The Security Council should be at the centre of

our collective efforts in maintaining peace and

resolving conflict. At the same time, the Council must

have at its disposal the means of making evaluations

and taking collective action. Most importantly, it must

have the will to act quickly and decisively, not only to

threats to peace and security, but to genocide and other

massive violations of human rights.

Nauru is pleased to see the rapid progression

towards making the International Criminal Court

operational since its Statute came into force in July

2001. We believe that the objectives of the Court make

it a useful addition to the international tool kit for the

preservation of peace, as perpetrators of atrocious acts

in armed conflict have been put on notice that they will

be held accountable for their acts or omissions.

As a small island developing State in the Pacific

Ocean, Nauru aligns itself with the statements of the

leaders of the Pacific nations who have spoken before

me on the concerns and challenges that we, the small-

island-big-ocean developing States are facing, now and

in the future. Nauru bears all the unique characteristics

of a small island State, given our small size, in terms of

both land area and population, our remoteness and our

vulnerability to exogenous forces, be they man-made or

natural.

In 1994, the world community agreed that small

island developing States warranted special

consideration with regard to their economic and social

development because of the unique set of

characteristics that are inherent in each island country,

and it was to address those unique problems that the

Barbados Plan of Action was created.

As His Royal Highness the Prime Minister of

Tonga stated in his intervention, the road to sustainable

development for small island developing States is

posted with signs of undertakings, as we marched from

Barbados in 1994 to New York in 1999 for the five-

year review, then on to Monterrey in 2002 for the

International Conference on Financing for

Development, where more signs were posted saying

that internal self-help, good governance and trade were

the key to poverty alleviation, and that subscription to

those cures would provide the way for developed

countries to come in and help. Most, if not all, of the

small island developing States have been taking this

medicine for a long time, and we have yet to see the

doctor. In Johannesburg, a whole chapter was devoted

to the cause of the small island developing States. In

April of this year, the Commission on Sustainable

Development paved the way for an international

meeting to be held in Mauritius in 2004.

Yet despite all these signs of good intentions, the

reality is that, when small island developing States try

to see that these decisions or undertakings are reflected

in other international forums, our proposals in most

cases are either rejected or rendered impotent after

intense and difficult negotiations. The Cancún meeting

is a good example, as is the recent meeting of

Convention bodies such as the Eighth Conference of

the Parties to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change in New Delhi in 2002,

and the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United

Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, held in

Havana recently. This undesirable situation needs to be

addressed if small island developing States are to

benefit from the positive outcomes of international

meetings or review conferences.

23

As we march towards Mauritius, small island

developing States will have to endure due process in

the Second Committee and at the twelfth session of the

Commission on Sustainable Development in order to

establish administrative and financial norms for the

international meeting. My delegation suspects that

there will be many bumps and detours on the way, but

our hope is that, at the end of the road, the outcome

will focus on what needs to be done — when and by

whom — to overcome impediments in the

implementation of the Programme of Action.

It is not sufficient to rely solely on the Barbados

Programme of Action to address all the development

problems of small island developing States. To that

end, Nauru sees the Millennium Development Goals as

supplementing the Programme of Action by adding the

human development dimension to the scope of issues

that should be addressed and by offering partnership to

drive the process.

However, for small island States like Nauru, the

complex reporting requirement of the Goals is adding

to the burden of reports that we are required to prepare,

and therefore it is the considered view of my

delegation that the United Nations Development

Programme should tailor the questionnaire to suit a

group of clients rather than use a one-size-fits-all

approach. Assistance also should be provided to

countries such as Nauru to collect and process the raw

data required for the report.

Nauru, like other low-lying small island States,

sees the Kyoto Protocol as its salvation from sea-level

rise and climate change, which would devastate our

already fragile ecological system, which is essential to

our livelihood and culture. My delegation understands

that the Russian Federation now stands between the

Kyoto Protocol’s coming into force and its continuing

to languish. If that is the case, then Nauru calls on the

Russian Federation to do what is universally right and

just by ratifying the protocol before the meeting of the

Ninth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be held

in Italy in December this year.

A healthy Pacific Ocean and the sustainable use

of its natural resources, including highly migratory fish

stocks, are also critical to our livelihood. We in the

Pacific have walked the talk on these issues through

the development of an ocean policy to guide us in the

management of our part of the Pacific Ocean and to

form the framework for future regional ocean-related

initiatives.

Secondly, we have adopted a Convention on the

Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory

Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean,

which provides a comprehensive regime for the

management of the region’s highly migratory fish

stocks, both in our exclusive economic zone and in the

high seas.

The trans-shipment of nuclear waste through our

waters is of great concern to many island countries

because of the damage it could cause.

My delegation has stated during previous debates

that it agrees fully with the proposal to reform the

Security Council to bring it into tune with the realities

of today’s world order. We are disappointed that, after

10 years of debate, there is still no convergence of

views between the two camps on how to move forward.

To try to address the expansion along with the

question of the veto would be like riding a dead

horse — we would not go anywhere, which is exactly

the situation we are in.

Furthermore, my delegation believes that we have

done all we can do at the representative level, and that

the only way we can make progress is to take it to a

higher level, so that our political leaders can review

what we have done and make a decision on how to

move forward.

On the question of reforms to operational policies

and administrative structures, including budgetary

aspects of the United Nations, my delegation fully

supports the actions taken by the Secretary-General in

this regard, but it appears that much more has to be

done. The areas of review have to be enlarged and

intensified, if indeed the prediction that the regular

budget is going to exceed the $3 billion mark is

correct.

Finally, concerning reform, my delegation fully

supports the view expressed by Australia that the group

system needs modernization. Most of the Pacific small

island countries are buried in the Asian group, which

extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Suez Canal,

while our big brothers, Australia and New Zealand, are

“Others” in the Western European group. Outside the

United Nations system, the Pacific is usually grouped

with East Asia, in both economic and geopolitical

zoning. We see no reason why this cannot be the case

24

at the United Nations, considering that the divide

between Eastern and Western Europe will become

meaningless as the two converge.

Nauru, because of biased and incorrect media

reports over the last five years, now carries a stigma as

a haven for money-laundering through offshore banks

registered in Nauru. There have also been reports that

our Citizen Investment Programme is aiding and

abetting criminals and terrorists, allowing them free

movement by making possible the acquisition of

Nauruan passports.

The reluctance of foreign authorities to provide

proof of allegations of criminal activities by banks

registered in Nauru prevented the Government from

initiating the mechanism provided for in our legislation

to release information on offshore banks to foreign

authorities. This has put us on a collision course.

Nauru was not surprised when, in 2000, the

Financial Action Task Force (FATF) of the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) listed it along with others as a

non-cooperating country. The following year, Nauru’s

status was further downgraded, and it was put on the

list for “countermeasures” by members of FATF, not

because our laws were insufficient, but because the

goalposts were shifted and our failure involved a lack

of capacity and capability to supervise the offshore

banks registered in Nauru.

In December 2002, the United States

Government, in taking up FATF’s call to apply

countermeasures against Nauru, announced that Nauru

would be designated a “money-laundering” country

under the provisions of the Patriotic Act. The highest

level of sanctions would be applied, which would

prohibit all commercial and financial transactions

between any Nauru-registered financial institution and

the United States. In May 2003 Nauru was accordingly

informed and was given 30 days to show cause as to

why the sanction should not be applied.

Nauru submitted its comments, passed new laws

in March of this year repealing the registration of

offshore banks, and included a sunset clause

terminating the licenses that would come into effect 30

to 180 days — as the case may be — from 27 March

2003, when the law came into force. The Government

has also suspended the Citizen Investment Programme

while it reviews the law, in order to address the

concerns expressed by the United States Department of

State.

A new anti-money-laundering law was passed in

March, and work is in progress on omnibus legislation

that would address the financing of terrorism,

transnational organized crime and money-laundering.

Nauru also signed an article 98 agreement with the

United States.

In the process, Nauru has lost close to $2 million,

if not more, in revenue, which is a drop in the ocean to

OECD members but real money to us, considering that

it is equivalent to 5 per cent of the Government’s

annual budget. We are now waiting to learn our fate —

awaiting the judgement of the United States and the

FATF, as the two are interlinked.

To conclude, Nauru, small as it is, believes that

power consists in a nation’s capacity to link its will

with the purpose of others, to lead by reason and give

the gift of cooperation.