Singapore, 2001

It does seem

strange to congratulate Minister Han Seung-soo on his

appointment as President of the General Assembly so

late in this session. But we live in unusual times. The

United Nations needs clear leadership. With his

distinguished track record in public service in the

Republic of Korea, we are confident that Minister Han

will provide it to this Assembly. We assure him of our

full support.

We also congratulate Mr. Harri Holkeri for his

commendable leadership last year and, of course, the

Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and the United

Nations on the Nobel Peace Prize that they received.

The timing of this General Assembly indicates

the difficult circumstances we are in. Never before in

its 56-year history has the United Nations had to

postpone the general debate. Clearly, the terrorist

attacks of 11 September have already had drastic and

immediate international consequences. The long-term

consequences are still unknown. But we can be sure

that they will be both powerful and wide-ranging.

For the short term, the events of 11 September

have shaken an already vulnerable world economy. The

developed world is suffering a growing economic

slowdown. This is well known. Unfortunately, what is

less well known are the damaging effects of the

terrorist attacks on developing countries. In the

developed countries, which provide the principal

engine of the world’s economy, the attacks have

undermined consumer confidence, disrupted commerce

and destroyed wealth. But these are temporary shocks

from which the developed world can and will recover.

But what the terrorist attacks have dramatically

highlighted is the reality of interdependence in today’s

globalized world. Joseph Stiglitz, a recent Nobel Prize

winner, like the United Nations, highlighted this

interdependence in a Washington Post article dated 11

November 2001. He said, “It used to be said that when

America sneezed, Mexico caught a cold. Now, when

America sneezes, much of the world catches cold. And

according to recent data, America is not just sneezing,

it has a bad case of the flu.”

Hence, the developing countries, which depend

on a healthy global economy for their hopes of growth

and prosperity, face great dangers. The fear of

terrorism may constrict the key arteries of

globalization. We have already seen new precautions

taken in many countries, at ports, airports, train

stations, banks, media offices, government buildings,

factories, offices, hospitals and many other public

institutions. These precautions are important to protect

innocent people in their daily lives. However, they also

inevitably impose additional costs. These new

restrictions on travel, on shipping, on national and

international mail and on the free flow of goods and

information everywhere are effectively a tariff imposed

by terrorism upon the global community. Tragically, it

is also a regressive tariff, one that affects the poorer

members of the global community more.

34

If the arteries of globalization become

increasingly constricted and cease to function

effectively, developing countries will lose their best

chance of growing out of poverty. This will only

aggravate the hopelessness, marginalization, ignorance

and fear that can breed terrorism. We must avoid this

vicious cycle. In developed countries, the economic

slowdown is already strengthening protectionist voices

calling for restrictions on imports, the imposition of

non-tariff barriers, anti-dumping duties, restrictions on

migration and governmental support for domestic

industries. A genuine concern over terrorist use of

international financial and information networks could

also be used as a justification for restrictions on the

flows of international investment and information. And

developing countries need these flows.

Indeed, even before 11 September, developing

countries were not benefiting sufficiently from these

flows. The greater part of foreign direct investment

(FDI) flows mainly among developed countries. Of the

remainder, 12 major developing countries take 75 per

cent of private FDI to the developing world, while 140

developing countries take a share of only 5 per cent.

The poorest nations of the world therefore suffer not

from too many connections with the wider world, but

too few. Indeed, the poorest 48 countries account for

only 4 per cent of total world trade, while sub-Saharan

Africa receives only 5 per cent of the total net long-

term private capital flows to developing countries. At

the same time, in the developed countries, tariffs on the

export of goods of developing countries are 30 per cent

higher than the global average. The fact that tariffs on

goods of developing countries are 30 per cent higher

than the global average is truly a shocking statistic, and

we are surprised that this has not been highlighted

before in key forums. All this shows that the poor

countries cannot afford any further restrictions on

trade.

In this regard, we are relieved that the World

Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Doha, Qatar,

which ended yesterday, has finally agreed to launch a

new round of trade talks that we hope will keep the

global economy on track towards freer trade and

investment. Today’s Wall Street Journal, which, as we

all know, is a conservative journal, drew this link

between the events of 11 September and the results of

Doha:

“In an effort to keep poorer nations on their

side in the war on terrorism, United States and

European negotiators went further than anyone

expected to meet the demands of the developing

world. …

“Ultimately, the United States and Europe

made big concessions to the developing world —

concessions fiercely resisted by pharmaceutical

and steel companies in the United States and

farmers in Europe.”

This Doha meeting therefore confirmed that the

needs of poorer countries will have to be addressed in

the months and years to come, because as a result of 11

September, poorer countries will certainly suffer more

than richer ones. To give another obvious example,

tourism from richer countries is a major source of

income for many developing countries. But the fear of

flying — which I think has become quite real

nowadays — engendered by the recent terrorist attacks

has already caused airlines all over the world to cut

flight schedules and in many cases terminate them

altogether. It is already much harder to get direct

flights from, say, New York City to many Latin

American destinations. The World Travel and Tourism

Council has estimated that the events of 11 September

may cause the loss of up to 8.8 million jobs in the

travel and tourism industry. Of these, only 2.3 million

will be in the United States and Europe. The rest will

be in the developing world. Clearly, the impact on

developing countries dependent on the tourist trade

will be enormous.

The record of the past 30 years shows clearly that

countries better integrated into the global economic

system have enjoyed greater long-term growth than

have relatively isolated countries. I can quote no better

authority than the Secretary-General, who has said,

“Success in achieving sustained growth depends

critically on expanding access to the opportunities

of globalisation. The countries that have achieved

higher growth are those that have successfully

integrated into the global economy and attracted

foreign investment.” (Making Globalisation Work

For The Poor, The Independent, 12 December

2000)

In a recent book, The End of Globalization:

Lessons from the Great Depression, the author Harold

James examines the fallout from a collapse of the

integrated world in an earlier era. He provides a

sobering historical perspective on what we are

experiencing today. In the era before the First World

35

War, the world was in many ways a well-integrated

place. Movement of capital, knowledge and labour

among both rich and poor countries was much less

restricted. The rise of protectionism and isolationism in

response to this led to the Great Depression of the first

half of the twentieth century. This long-lasting global

recession ended only with the outbreak of the Second

World War. This is not a cycle that we should repeat as

we enter the twenty-first century.

One big lesson of 11 September is therefore that

globalization, which we assume to be a powerful,

irresistible force, is actually a very fragile construct,

dependent on the will of its participants for its

continuing existence. If it collapses — and the point to

bear in mind is that it may collapse — developing

countries could suffer more. Hence, the terrorists who

destroyed the World Trade Center could also seriously

damage the global economic system that represents the

best chance that the developing countries have for

long-term development, growth and prosperity. If the

terrorists succeed, we will all be worse off.

Hence, at the recently concluded summit of the

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in

Shanghai, China, APEC leaders representing 21

countries, both developed and developing, and coming

from three continents, unequivocally condemned

terrorist acts as a profound threat to the peace,

prosperity and security of all people, all faiths and all

nations and pledged to cooperate fully to ensure that

international terrorism does not disrupt economies and

markets. We are not engaged here merely in a struggle

between a few developed nations and a few terrorists.

The whole world is involved in this struggle.

Following 11 September, we in the international

community must act together to safeguard what we

have achieved and what we have yet to achieve. The

struggle against terrorism itself will take much time

and stamina. To track down the terrorist groups and rip

up their networks will be a difficult, long, messy and

even tedious business, requiring the cooperative efforts

of many countries. Countering terrorism must be an

international endeavour, and in this international

endeavour the United Nations has a critical role to play.

The United Nations remains the indispensable

forum to mobilize international opinion and develop a

strong political consensus against terrorism. Through

the Security Council, it also provides a platform for

practical cooperation, as we saw, for example, in

Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). Within the

United Nations system several bodies are already

seized of the various dimensions of terrorism. One

useful course of action would be for the various law

enforcement and other agencies dealing with terrorism

to get together to examine existing norms and practices

and areas for further cooperation. Where such

cooperation is already taking place bilaterally or

trilaterally among countries, the United Nations can

serve as a useful disseminator and clearing house of

information and best practices.

In the long term, the economic and social

conditions that encourage terrorists must be addressed

urgently, and certainly after 11 September, we now

know how urgent this task is. International economic

integration, while ultimately the only guarantor of

prosperity, is today incomplete in scope and uneven in

its distribution of costs and benefits. Many developing

countries remain imperfectly integrated into the world

economy. These problems must be addressed by

capacity-building and infrastructure development

within developing countries, with whatever

international assistance is necessary, and by the

elimination of trade barriers and protectionism in the

developed countries.

It is useful here to cite the latest World Bank

report, which states clearly that abolishing all trade

barriers could boost global income by $2.8 trillion —

that is an enormous sum — and could also lift as many

as 320 million people out of poverty by 2015. We hope

that the World Trade Organization negotiators will bear

this in mind when they commence the new round of

negotiations after the Doha, Qatar, meeting.

To conclude, please allow me to quote the

Secretary-General once again:

“In an increasingly globalized world, none

of the critical issues we are dealing with can be

resolved within a solely national framework. All

of them require cooperation, partnership and

burden-sharing among Governments, the United

Nations, regional organizations, non-

governmental organizations, the private sector

and civil society.” (A/56/1, para. 11)

Global actions, facilitated by consultative leadership,

are needed to address challenges of global dimensions.

We hope that we can make a small beginning at this

session of the General Assembly to do this.