Panama, 2006

I should

like to say how pleased the Government of Panama is

at your election, Madam, to preside over the sixty-first

session of the General Assembly. Your illustrious

professional record and your extraordinary action in

defence of women’s rights lead us to believe that you

will guide us in an exemplary manner. I also

congratulate the Secretary-General on his encouraging

words yesterday. The ovation that ensued bears witness

to the Assembly’s gratitude for his efforts over 10 years

of heading the Secretariat.

Over the past few years we have dedicated

considerable effort and time to the task of reforming

the United Nations. We are doing this for one simple

reason: we want it to work better. That aspiration is

based on a profound conviction that the Organization is

indispensable for humanity. Those who criticize the

Organization must be honest when they wonder what

the world would be like without the United Nations

and its specialized agencies. Those who govern are

examined on a daily basis by their peoples and

sometimes they are criticized very severely, but nobody

suggests that there should not be a government. We

want governments to be better because they are

necessary, just as we want the United Nations to be

better because it is equally necessary. We do not want

to imagine a world without a United Nations. That is

why at the Summit in September last year, as the

culmination of long debate and tremendous collective

effort, we agreed on a series of reforms for the United

Nations machinery.

What is at stake today is not just the fate of a

single initiative, but, rather, the effectiveness of the

United Nations in complying with the purposes and

principles of the Charter. The General Assembly has

acted with diligence, and we are proud in particular of

the decision to create a Human Rights Council, whose

establishment should strengthen respect for human

rights and spread their promotion globally. Panama,

born closely linked to international affairs, continues to

be committed to strengthening human rights

throughout the world. It is in this field that we see the

greatest paradox: where the United Nations has made

the most progress is where there remains the most

progress still to be made. Before its inception human

rights violations were almost ignored. Today the

denunciations made at the United Nations have a

tremendous deterrent power, so those violations do not

continue to be perpetrated. At the same time, it is true

that there have been horrendous violations during the

life of the United Nations, but no one can deny that the

reality and consequences are very different from the

situation that prevailed only a few decades ago.

The United Nations and its specialized agencies

have the important task of coordinating efforts to

protect the millions of human beings living in poverty.

Poverty is the daily denial of man’s fundamental rights.

While genocide causes indignation and is emphatically

rejected by the international community, there should

be the same indignation over poverty, as it afflicts a

06-52879 4

large part of the world’s population. Governments have

a moral obligation to help people and communities

living below the poverty line. Economic growth rates

are deceptive, and almost offensive, if there is no direct

relief for those who have less and who, without

assistance, have no chance of breaking out of the

vicious circle of poverty.

Within the reforms to the Organization now being

debated, we should, in order more effectively to

address poverty in the world, give greater weight and

authority to the General Assembly to adopt measures of

universal scope, not resolutions, repeated year after

year, with no binding power.

Similarly, I should like to address the need to

expand the Security Council so that it truly represents

today’s world and not the world as it was 60 years ago.

Not to reform the Security Council would be

detrimental to its purposes. A Council that is not

representative cannot be as legitimate or effective.

However, although there is consensus about the need to

reform, how to reform has provoked more disunity than

agreement. From Panama’s perspective, geographical

representation is an important factor to be considered,

but it cannot be the only one. A member of the Security

Council does not sit on the Council to represent itself

or the geographic region to which it belongs; it

represents all Member States, which have entrusted it

with this responsibility because it has shown the

commitment and capacity to further the effort to

maintain international peace and security.

It is time now to look at this topic with different

eyes. The facts that are developing continuously in the

Middle East, and the fact that terrorist attacks continue

to occur throughout the world, show that it is crucial to

strengthen the Security Council as soon as possible

through a process of reform that includes a moderate

expansion of the membership while the Council

remains legitimate in the eyes of the rest of the

international community. Strengthening the organs of

the United Nations, and more particularly the Security

Council, will make it possible for events such as those

in Lebanon to be met with a prompt and effective

response. If the Organization had had the required

instruments to act robustly with legitimacy, we could

have put an early end to the confrontations; in fact,

they could have been avoided entirely if we had had an

adequate preventive force. The rapid escalation of the

conflict has highlighted the imperative need to resolve

the Middle East crisis so that Jews, Muslims and

Christians can coexist in peace, as they do in Panama

and many other parts of the world.

There are tested ways to promote confidence

among parties, to reconcile positions and to achieve

consensus. The use of arms can help some people to

gain some short-term objectives but the atmosphere is

poisoned and there cannot be peaceful coexistence

among neighbours, families and peoples that

geography has placed so close to one another. It is

obvious from every perspective that a solution to the

conflict requires the immediate and unconditional

withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories,

establishment of the Palestine State and recognition of

Israel’s right to exist as a State. All the countries in the

region must have sufficient guarantees that conflicts

will not be resolved through force and that no territory

can be used to attack a neighbour. Peace in the Middle

East has to be built by each and every State with the

resolute support of the international community.

Our vision is the same for other regions of the

world where a high degree of political tension still

prevails and endangers the peace. Peaceful solutions

cannot be postponed, for there is always the risk of

violent confrontations of unsuspected dimensions that

we will all deplore.

I should like to draw attention to a significant

event that will take place in my country in the next few

weeks and will have an impact on world trade. On

22 October there will be a referendum to decide

whether the Panama Canal should be expanded. The

historic and emotional dimension of the canal for the

Panamanian people means that its expansion is the only

decision of the legislature and the Executive that needs

a referendum for confirmation. The Panama Canal

links the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. It is therefore the

best route for the transport of goods between different

continents, between two countries in the American

continent, and even between two coasts in a single

country. Five per cent of world maritime trade passes

through the Panama Canal. The percentage varies from

one country to another: 3.5 per cent of an economy the

size of China’s; 16 per cent of the United States foreign

trade; and 35 per cent of Chile’s trade. The fact is that

the future of the Panama Canal affects the international

community as a whole.

Only seven years ago the canal was run by the

United States. After a long and complex negotiation

that included a special meeting of the Security Council

5 06-52879

in Panama — one of only two times that that body has

met outside New York Headquarters — it reverted to

Panama on the last day of the twentieth century. Since

then Panama has administered the canal with efficiency

and safety, and it is now about to decide whether to

take the tremendous step of expanding the canal to

enhance its capacity and allow larger ships to use it.

The United Nations has always been involved in

Panama’s fate, the fate of the canal. It was on the

agenda when it was a continuing source of conflict

between Panama and the United States. It supported the

Universal Congress on the canal in 1997 and finally it

welcomed the canal’s orderly transfer to Panamanian

jurisdiction. That is why Panama once again wishes to

draw the General Assembly’s attention to the canal and

to reiterate its gratitude to the Non-Aligned Movement,

because last week the Heads of State and Government

adopted a declaration recognizing the efficient

administration of the Panama Canal and expressing

their support for the initiative to expand its present

capacity. The canal is the most important resource for

my country’s development and is a valuable strategic

avenue at the service of trade and communications for

the entire world.

In my country there is full awareness that our

geographic position is our major asset, but that its

exploitation involves responsibilities towards the

international community. That is why, while we

welcome international recognition of the manner in

which we have been administering the canal, we also

wish to tell the world body that the Panama Canal will

continue to be managed so as to be efficient, neutral

and safe, for the benefit of all ships in the world, flying

every flag.