New Zealand, 1995

May I first take this

occasion to congratulate Ambassador Diogo Freitas do

Amaral of Portugal on his election to the presidency of

the Assembly in this important fiftieth anniversary year.

I should also like to offer a special welcome to

Palau as the one hundred eighty-fifth Member. Palau’s

accession does signal honour to us as a fellow Pacific

State.

Here today I want to talk about making our global

neighbourhood a safer place for all of us; the progress

that has been made in the years since the end of the cold

war, and what still needs to be done. Memories are short;

it is hard to recall the degree of mutual suspicion that

coloured global politics just a few years ago.

We have made great strides in recent times. The

world community has achieved much in its efforts to

make the world safer, and more stable. But we need to

move on to reinforce our achievements in controlling,

reducing and abolishing the horrific weapons of mass

destruction. We have yet to see the dividend we all

expected to flow from the end of the cold war.

The transition to a post-cold-war world is not easy.

We are painfully aware of that. In recent years though,

we have been encouraged to believe that a new world

order was achievable. One of the reasons for this hope,

this optimism, was that the nuclear scourge had receded.

For the first time in 50 years nuclear Powers were

committed to build down rather than to build up, to

decommission and destroy rather than to commission and

construct.

However, recent events have cast a cloud over that

brief period of optimism. New Zealand does not believe

18

that continued nuclear testing, wherever it takes place,

contributes to a safer world. On the contrary, nuclear

testing sends the wrong message to States which do possess

or which aspire to the possession of nuclear weapons. It

also tells them that the development of these weapons is

still acceptable.

The nuclear tests which have taken place since the

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was

extended have disturbed the delicate balance achieved at

that Conference. New Zealand believed then, and continues

to believe, that indefinite extension was the right option.

The world needs a strong non-proliferation regime, one that

cannot be called into question by changing global

circumstances. But the Conference went further than that,

the vast majority of participants making it very clear that

they were against nuclear testing. They also wanted to

move towards the nuclear-free world envisaged in article VI

of the Treaty. The cavalier disregard, and dismissal of the

views of the many, has led to considerable disillusionment.

It will take a long time to restore the trust that had been

there.

New Zealand and the rest of the South Pacific region

have long stood tall and proud in opposition to nuclear

weapons and their testing. We abhor testing wherever it

occurs. But the decision to resume testing in what we see

as our home region has particularly angered the people of

New Zealand. The leaders of the South Pacific Forum

nations expressed their outrage at their meeting just two

weeks ago. They were able to recall the painful memories

in the region, going back to atmospheric testing conducted

between 25 and 50 years ago.

The South Pacific has not been alone in its opposition

to nuclear testing. Governments, parliamentarians and

peoples from every region of the world have spoken up in

anger, alarm and dismay. The two Governments which are

continuing to test nuclear weapons must heed the voice of

the international community. They are dancing to a tune no

one wants to hear.

In these circumstances, New Zealand, along with a

representative group of like-minded States, will submit an

appropriate draft resolution to the First Committee of this

Assembly.

Testing is a backward step, and I condemn it. It is not

too late. All that China and France need to do is listen to

international opinion and announce that their testing

programmes have ceased.

I want to welcome the commitment by three of the

nuclear-weapon States — France, the United Kingdom

and the United States — to a genuine ban on nuclear

testing: a prohibition on any nuclear explosions, no matter

how small. This is what we have always called for: a

comprehensive ban — where the word “comprehensive”

means just that. We are pleased that it is attracting serious

support.

New Zealand calls on the two nuclear-weapon States

that have not yet indicated full support for this approach

to do so quickly. Time is short. The deadline for the

negotiations is 1996, and the international community is

holding the Conference on Disarmament accountable for

meeting that deadline and producing a treaty that is

genuinely comprehensive in scope.

In this regard, the General Assembly has become

increasingly concerned about the lack of accountability in

the Conference on Disarmament. Limited and

unrepresentative membership has been a large part of the

problem. Enlargement is long overdue. New Zealand

welcomes the progress made in recent weeks in Geneva,

and we express our gratitude to Morocco for its efforts in

this regard.

However, the real test will be whether by the time

we meet here again next year the new members will have

been able to take their seats. For the moment, the

outcome is still not satisfactory. I recall that democratic

representation was once at the heart of a tea party in

Boston. Let us hope that there will not be a tea party in

New York in 1996 on membership of the Conference on

Disarmament.

I also urge the members of the Conference on

Disarmament to look beyond the conclusion of a

comprehensive test-ban treaty. New Zealand wants to see

an international agreement banning the production of

fissile material for nuclear weapons. That would be

another important step towards negotiations on the total

elimination of nuclear weapons. We urge the Conference

on Disarmament to resolve its procedural differences and

get the negotiations under way.

I should add that at the Review and Extension

Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we raised the idea of

negotiating an agreement to ban the future production of

nuclear weapons. That could take us a step closer to

eliminating the nuclear threat.

19

But it is also important to address the issues relating

to conventional weapons.

I wish, first, to address the issue of land-mines. I want

to congratulate the Secretary-General and his staff for the

way they have picked up this issue and raised public

awareness around the world. The Conference organized in

Geneva this year was most timely — but more is needed.

Both financial and technical resources need to be made

available to help dispose of the millions of treacherous life-

and livelihood-destroying mines that have already been laid.

I pledge New Zealand’s ongoing assistance in this work.

Of course, disposal alone is not the answer. Urgent

progress needs to be made to deal with these hideous

weapons, which go on claiming the lives of innocent

people — farmers, their children, shopkeepers, collectors of

wood, carriers of water — long after conflicts have ceased.

I ask all the participants at the Conference which opened

this week in Vienna, which has as its main aim the revision

of international law on land-mines, to work together to

achieve the tightest possible restrictions on these totally

indiscriminate weapons. I want to work to eliminate them

entirely from the world’s armouries.

This leads one to the broader questions of arms

transfers. We are profoundly disturbed at the unnecessary

and irrational increase in arms transfers. At a time when,

globally, resources are desperately needed for development,

for the environment, for health, why is it that even modest

measures, such as enhancing the United Nations Register of

Conventional Arms are still being resisted?

Neither peace nor development is advanced if States

put increasingly scarce economic resources into the defence

sectors of their economies. Far too much of the global

economic capacity is going into armaments when the

citizens of the world desperately need better health, better

education and a better future for their children.

The widespread availability of conventional arms and

the resurgence of ethnic nationalism have, together,

produced a very dangerous cocktail, which poses a major

threat to stability in the post-cold-war era. The need for

Member States to maintain a collective approach in

addressing these challenges has never been greater.

Events in the former Yugoslavia over the past year

have presented an enormous challenge to the international

community. New Zealand fully supported the firm response

made by this Organization and the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization to the murderous shelling of Sarajevo late in

August. The diplomatic efforts now under way, including

the very important constitutional agreement reached last

Tuesday, offer some prospect for bringing to an end

almost four years of a most appalling conflict.

Some have been dismissive of the achievements of

the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia. That,

however, is to overlook the saving of tens of thousands of

lives and the substantial relief of suffering. This is why

New Zealand, despite its geographical distance from the

region, has been willing to play its part. I believe that,

one day, the United Nations mission in Bosnia will enjoy

recognition of the successes it has achieved so far.

It is a little too easy to focus on the problems of the

United Nations. We need to remember its successes as

well. I think of Cambodia and Mozambique, of El

Salvador and Haiti, of Namibia and Angola and of the

contributions to peace in various parts of the Middle East

over the years. Even in Somalia, where a political

settlement proved elusive, massive famine was relieved

thanks to the United Nations.

The United Nations is unique. It is called on to deal

with the most intractable problems — the ones that others

put into the “too hard” basket. And it works under the

closest public scrutiny of Governments and the world’s

media.

New Zealand strongly supports practical steps to

improve peace-keeping management. We have, in fact,

provided additional specialist personnel to the Department

of Peace-keeping Operations at our own expense. We

have contributed to the strengthening of the Secretariat’s

capacity in the demining area. And we shall continue

these commitments because we believe that they are so

necessary. We also entered into the United Nations

stand-by arrangements earlier this year, and we hope that

these will provide a clearer focus for peace-keeping and

its planning.

We have also studied with interest the Secretary-

General’s recommendation, in his Supplement to “An

Agenda for Peace”, that the United Nations should

consider the idea of a rapid-deployment force. I wish to

commend the ground-breaking work that has already been

done by Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark and others.

My discussions yesterday with Ministers from these and

other countries were encouraging to me. Progress can and

should be made in this area.

20

At about this time last year I spoke to the General

Assembly about a number of elements that I consider

critical to the conduct of peace-keeping operations. These

included a sustainable financial system, transparent political

accountability, clear objectives, a credible legal regime that

guarantees the security of United Nations personnel and, of

course, the availability of resources so that objectives can

be met quickly and efficiently.

Progress has been made. We were especially pleased

to see the Convention on the Safety of United Nations

Personnel opened for signature during last year’s session.

We urge those that have not signed it to do so, and soon.

We owe that to the thousands who have served, and are

serving, in the United Nations operations worldwide.

The improved procedures for consultation between the

Security Council and troop contributors, initiated by

Argentina and New Zealand, have now been in place for

almost a year. Pleasing as this is, we still have some way

to go. It is up to those of us who contribute troops to

United Nations operations to ensure there is no slippage in

these procedures.

Regrettably, however, we do not appear to have a

sustainable financial system. I am gravely concerned that,

despite all the warnings here in this Assembly last year,

delegations have not made any real progress in the Working

Group addressing the financial crisis. The United

Nations — this United Nations — ran out of cash in mid-

August. The arrears of Member States in respect of the

regular and peace-keeping budgets have reached

unprecedented levels. It is nothing short of a tragedy that

on the eve of our celebration of the fiftieth anniversary, the

United Nations, this body of ours, is on the verge of

bankruptcy.

At this critical point in the United Nations history, we

need political will, not more words. “Words pay no debts”,

as Shakespeare wrote. We need new ideas, not recycled

platitudes. And, above all, Members must pay their dues,

on time, and in full.

We do stand here at a crossroads. In taking stock of

the United Nations 50 years, we have much on which to

reflect. There have been good times, and there have been

bad times. Reform and revitalization must stay on our

minds. I wish to assure you, Sir, and all other members, of

New Zealand’s commitment to help remould the

Organization to that which will be needed to work for all

of us as we head towards the twenty-first century.