Singapore, 1992

In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall

fell and the cold war came to an end, there were 159 Member States represented

in this Hall. Today, three years later, there are 179, an increase of 20.

Will this trend continue? If so, there could be 200 Member States represented

in this Hall when we meet here again in 1995. Will these new countries come

from Africa, Asia, Europe or the Americas? And will the birth pangs of these

new States be as traumatic as those of some our newer Members, like Croatia,

Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Georgia? Or will they emerge

peacefully?

I begin my statement with these questions because I believe that our

first task at this session is to rid ourselves of the euphoria that many of us

here experienced when the cold war ended. From the tragic experience of

Kuwait to the continuing anguish of the former Yugoslavs, we are seeing the

re-emergence of forces that we thought had been swept away by forces of

modernization. Ghosts which had been sleeping for decades have awakened to

haunt us. How many more will awaken in the years to come?

This session clearly needs to be one of sober reflection. In this regard

I am pleased that we have elected Ambassador Ganev of Bulgaria to guide our

deliberations. This reflects the confidence of Member States in his

leadership abilities. Bulgaria's geographical location gives it a unique

insight into the problems that we are facing.

I should also like to place on record our appreciation of the wise

leadership and guidance provided by our President's predecessor,

Ambassador Samir Shihabi. In addition, we wish to place on record our

appreciation to Mr. Perez de Cuellar for his 10 years of dedicated and

exemplary service as Secretary-General. Let me also congratulate

Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali on his wise and dynamic stewardship of the United

Nations in his first year in office.

There can no longer be any doubt that the cold war, even though it

terrified many of us in this Hall, effectively froze or suppressed many

tribal, religious, ethnic and cultural divisions. The thawing of the cold war

has led to their re-emergence. I need only to cite some obvious recent

examples. Even as we speak, conflicts are raging between Armenia and

Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, and there are conflicts in Moldova, Georgia

and Afghanistan. Somalia is splintering; the former Yugoslavia has descended

into tribal warfare. The world has still not recovered from the shock of the

atrocities and the blatant disregard of basic humanitarian principles in

Bosnia and Herzegovina in the name of "ethnic cleansing", which we condemn as

an abhorrent practice.

In this setting it is appropriate and timely that the Secretary-General

has produced his report "An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy,

peacemaking and peace-keeping" (A/47/277). Not every United Nations Member

will agree with its analysis. Nor will all the recommendations be universally

endorsed. But it is a far-reaching document with concrete proposals for the

maintenance of international peace and security.

It also contains the Secretary-General's recommendations on ways to strengthen

and make more efficient the capacity of the United Nations for preventive

diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building. We should

congratulate the Secretary-General and his staff on putting together a

comprehensive and thoughtful paper that raises the issues that Member States

need to address.

There is much in there for us to ruminate on but there is also room for

us to add ideas to it. For example, the report, for obvious reasons, refrains

from trying to apportion blame or investigate the causes of the recent

conflicts. This should be the job of Member States. We need to be clear in

our minds whether the explosion of new States in recent years is a natural and

welcome development, something akin to what we saw in the era of

decolonization, or whether it is a reflection of a state of disorder in the

structures of human society that we have created in the twentieth century. Or

is it the case, as the "Agenda for Peace" suggests, that the "deepest causes

of conflict" are: "economic despair, social injustice and political

oppression" (A/47/277, para. 15)? We need to be clear in our minds about what

is happening because this will in turn define the mission that we will entrust

to the United Nations: when a conflict breaks out within a State should the

mission of the United Nations be to resolve the conflict and peacefully

reunite the factions as in Angola and El Salvador or should the mission of

the United Nations be to facilitate a peaceful division of the country as in

Yugoslavia? These are not theoretical questions. These are practical

questions that United Nations peace-keepers confront on a day-to-day basis in

the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia.

Lest I be misunderstood, let me stress that I welcome the new Member

States that have joined the United Nations this year: Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic

of Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. I

believe that they would agree with me that if more new Member States are going

to join us we should ensure that they emerge peacefully and not through war

and conflict.

The "Agenda for Peace" also makes it clear that the functions of United

Nations peace-keepers have gone far beyond their usual mandate. In the past

United Nations peace-keepers were traditionally sent in after a peace

agreement had been worked out between the warring parties. Today United

Nations forces are involved in a variety of tasks ranging from

election-monitoring to inspection of nuclear installations. The range of

functions is expected to increase. As the "Agenda for Peace" points out,

these will include preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and

peace-building.

Let me also state the points of agreement that I have with the report.

First, I agree that the United Nations should play a more proactive role in

preventive diplomacy. As the report states:

"... preventive diplomacy requires measures to create confidence; it

needs early warning based on information gathering and informal or formal

fact-finding; it may also involve preventive deployment and, in some

situations, demilitarized zones." (A/47/277, para. 23)

Secondly, I also agree that the Security Council can now play a more active

role because, as the report states:

"With greater unity has come leverage and persuasive power to lead

hostile parties towards negotiations." (A/47/277, para. 35)

Thirdly, I agree that the United Nations should work in concert with regional

groupings. I believe that the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

would be happy to do so. The endorsement by the United Nations of the Treaty

of Amity and Cooperation, signed in Bali, Indonesia, in 1976 and recently

acceded to by Laos and Viet Nam, could make it a model for other regions to

emulate.

Having imposed these significant new burdens on the United Nations it is

absurd that Member States, especially the permanent members of the United

Nations Security Council, are depriving the United Nations of the funds needed

to carry out these operations. Unpaid arrears for United Nations

peace-keeping operations now amount to $800 million. They are likely to rise

as the cost of peace-keeping operations for this year alone is likely to reach

$3 billion.

Some of the biggest debtors of the United Nations come from countries of

the North. It would be tragic for countries of the North to assume that they

are immune from the political and economic travails of the South. Yugoslavia

has demonstrated that these problems can explode at their doorsteps. The

modern technology spun by the developed countries has made our world into a

global village in the truest sense of the word. No villager can ignore a fire

in the home of his fellow villager, for if he does his own home could be burnt.

We saw this clearly at the Rio de Janeiro Summit earlier this year. The

countries of the North called upon the countries of the South to restrain

their deforestation, their production of chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and their

pollutive development, for they were concerned that the effects of these

activities in the South would wander into their homes. Yet while they expect

the relatively impoverished countries of the South to make valiant sacrifices,

they are not prepared to make equal sacrifices in their relatively affluent

lifestyles. Given these difficulties, it is remarkable that the Rio Summit

reached a consensus on Agenda 21. We in the General Assembly should endorse

the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 and adopt a good decision to establish a

high-level commission on sustainable development. The momentum achieved in

Rio de Janeiro has to be maintained and followed up.

To address these environmental questions squarely, the world also needs

to reinvigorate the global economy. We must convince the countries of the

North that if they want the South to pay greater heed to their concerns on the

global environment, they must in turn push the global economy forward by

successfully completing the Uruguay Round as soon as possible. Instead of

doing this, the countries of the North are concentrating on regional

integration. Whatever the fate of the Maastricht Treaty, an integrated single

European market will be in place by January 1993, bolstered by an expanded

agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries that would

bring about greater European Community-EFTA economic co-operation known as the

European Economic Area (EEA). The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) is

about to be formed. If these arrangements benefit only the countries of the

North, with no perceived benefits to the South, the South is unlikely to

cooperate with the North on environmental issues.

Fortunately, the South has not been standing still. A major economic

revolution is also taking place there, affecting the lives of billions of

people, especially in large nations such as China, India, Pakistan and

Indonesia. If present trends continue, by the year 2000 the ASEAN countries

and the Asian newly industrializing economies will have a gross domestic

product (GDP) of $3.3 trillion, two thirds of the United States 1990 GDP or

half of the European Community 1990 GDP. China could double its gross

national product (GNP) within this decade. Clearly, some parts of the South

are going to experience explosive economic growth.

Except for a few which still cling to the virtues of the command economy,

practically every country in the world now realizes that it has to introduce

economic reforms. The old economic systems with their manifest inefficiencies

and inadequacies that hindered economic growth had to be discarded. Except

for a few, all States are working to introduce the market-economy system. But

such adjustment to open economic competition is not without sacrifices and

great political costs. The transitional economies have experienced great

economic difficulties and dislocations in their initial periods of

adjustment. The North should see that it is in its interest to help these

countries by fighting protectionism. With such support, the developing

countries should be able to pull off this economic transition successfully.

If this massive economic revolution in the South succeeds, the world will

experience a rising tide that will lift all of humankind those in the South

and those in the North. It is also likely that this rising tide would help

extinguish the flames of tribal and ethnic discord that have erupted around

the globe.

South-East Asia has sometimes been called "the Balkans of Asia". Despite

this, the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

have already experienced two decades of peace and economic development.

Through regional cooperation in ASEAN and the concentration of national

energies on economic development, the ASEAN region has become the most

peaceful and prosperous part of the third world. There is no reason why this

ASEAN experience cannot be duplicated in the rest of the world. I hope that

this session of the General Assembly will give some thought to this as it

searches for solutions to the ongoing tragedies we are now witnessing.