Uruguay, 1996

Perhaps the term “globalization”, which occurs so

frequently in so many decisions nowadays, best describes

the international system which prevails in the present

decade and which, under the influence of a growing and

close interdependence, will extend into the twenty-first

century. Admittedly, the term is not a precise one that

sums up the broad and complex range of supranational

phenomena that have been emerging since 1989, the year

that symbolizes the end of the cold war.

It is undoubtedly a term that is indicative of the fact

that today the cause-and-effect relationship in the

economic, political and even the cultural sphere

transcends traditional national borders more than ever.

Interdependence is today more pronounced than ever

before in history: markets, capital flows, research and

production do not coincide with the political map. The

industrial assembly lines of advanced technology ignore

national borders, often making it difficult to determine the

origin of a finished product, since its components come

from such diverse sources. The political boundaries of

States are no longer boundaries of economic production

and processes. The network of multinational corporations

has expanded to the extent that transactions between their

subsidiaries account for one quarter of world trade. In the

face of the fluctuation and volatility of international

electronic transactions, the central banks of the most

developed countries already have difficulty controlling the

exchange rates of their currencies or the level of interest

rates. The recent establishment of the World Trade

Organization (WTO) is seen as the institutional

culmination of this global trend towards liberalization of

trade in goods and services and as a force conducive to

interdependence.

Accordingly, globalization, despite the various rates

at which it operates in different parts of the world —

from the slow, deliberate pace at which it proceeds in

countries with agrarian economies to the dizzying rapidity

of its progress in those possessing advanced

technologies — appears to be the distinguishing mark of

4

the post-cold-war era. This phenomenon increasingly lends

itself to the dominance of a system of echoes and

reflections between nations, of all manner of

interrelationships, which in theory should contribute to

international stability, since according to classical doctrine,

the risks of military confrontation are reduced when nations

become more interdependent economically and financially.

Nevertheless, recent events have revealed the contrary: new

sources of tension and conflict have emerged on the

international scene, as well as new unconventional forms of

violence and crime that affect world peace and destabilize

coexistence within and between democratic societies.

In this setting of globalization and interdependence,

the United Nations — with its universal composition, its

agglutinative structure that brings together countries at the

most varied levels of human development and ethnic or

religious composition, its institutional capacity to act as a

point of articulation or a sounding board for all concerns or

aspirations that extend beyond the local, national or

regional level — would be in an ideal position to play a

leading and decisive role. In other words, this Organization

is the forum that, by the nature and magnitude of its

missions, should embody or interpret more faithfully than

any other institution these compelling, topical phenomena

of globalization and interdependence.

Yet, this distinctive role of the United Nations remains

an unrealized vision. It must be asked, then, whether the

United Nations, an organic manifestation of the global

system that has taken shape in this decade, is capable of

effective, systematic action in preventive diplomacy. We

would take it one step further and ask what our own

national responsibility is, as a democratic State and a

founding Member of the United Nations, in strengthening

its role in the face of new challenges.

Although this may appear simplistic, it is possible to

conceive of war as a consequence of poverty, injustice,

overpopulation or poverty. But if these conditions have to

be eliminated before peace is feasible, then preventing or

restricting hostile tensions becomes a Utopian exercise. For

this reason, we believe that there is an urgent need to take

an up-to-date, modern look at how the United Nations

should react and act in response to the new threats to peace,

and at what its capacity should be to respond to the

phenomena inherent in the recent or current forms of

globalization.

On considering these questions, we shall certainly

come up against an unavoidable obstacle: that of the nation

in its traditional form and as the basic unit on which the

structure of the United Nations was built. This nation no

longer exercises a monopoly over international decisions,

and consequently is not the exclusive determinant of their

legitimacy. To some extent, this phenomenon may be

similar to that described as the emergence of the

imprecise State, found in a wide variety of non-State

political bodies or agents that have an international impact

through the intricate network of non-governmental

organizations and multinational political movements

whose proliferation is another sign of the new

interdependence, and which play an increasingly active

role in the management of the world system.

Undoubtedly, Governments, as the executives of the

political decisions of States, retain their essential powers

in matters of diplomacy, security, defence,

macroeconomics and currency. Obviously, the United

Nations, sustained by the will of Governments, has acted

and continues to act as a summarizer or synthesizer of

those various wills, without prejudice to the greater or

lesser influence of the military or financial powers of its

Member States. For this reason, quite naturally, the

activity or inactivity of the Organization depends on the

concerns or indifference of national Governments, or on

the way in which those Governments articulate their

consensus or disagreement. But other actors have also

taken the international stage, and they are not always a

part of the multiplicity of non-governmental organizations.

There are also ethnic groups not assimilated into an

externally imposed nationality, so-called region-States,

with growing links to the world economy and decreasing

links to national authorities, as well as religious

movements that transcend frontiers and inflame fanaticism

which, in some cases, has terrorist effects.

We therefore see a dual and contradictory process:

globalization and fragmentation. On the one hand,

interdependence has given rise to an increasingly

interlinked world in which entities influence each other

mutually, and this in theory would be conducive to the

strengthening of political units and the formation of

mega-States or large regional blocs. On the other hand,

and as a consequence of the progressive impact of these

new actors on the international scene, fragmentation has

also emerged. Since its establishment, the United Nations

has seen the number of Member States increase almost

fivefold, and at present, approximately one third of these

countries has been significantly affected by insurgent or

dissident movements or Governments in exile.

For all of these reasons, which are associated with

this dialectical process of globalization and fragmentation,

5

with the growing international importance of a

heterogeneous collection of new actors and with the

emergence of non-conventional threats to peace that cannot

be reconciled through traditional mechanisms of collective

security, we need to rethink our Organization and to act in

consequence.

The restructuring of the United Nations is certainly not

a new issue. On its thirtieth, fortieth and fiftieth

anniversaries, efforts at revision, or rather at reform,

emerged, aimed at achieving greater efficiency in the

pursuit of its purposes. Unfortunately, however, the effort

currently under way, like its predecessors, does not go to

the root of the problem, which lies far deeper than the

pursuit of administrative efficiency or the rationalization of

functions. If we evaluate the current efforts to restructure

the United Nations, we see clearly that in practice virtually

all of the reforms being studied have no more than a

procedural or formal impact, and do not make a decisive

contribution to strengthening the system, or at least its

substance, especially if we bear in mind that this

Organization exists at a period in history characterized most

distinctly by an accelerated pace of change.

Uruguay fully and spontaneously agrees with the

widespread aspiration for change. Like the vast majority of

States represented here, our country feels a deep-seated,

natural inclination in favour of any means or instrument

that, at the global or regional level, prompts or compels

nations to conduct themselves in accordance with law. For

countries such as ours, which are founded on the rule of

international law, it is essential to support any effort to

guarantee the legal order, the principles of law, and the rule

of law in relations among States. This is not simply a

rhetorical reaffirmation of our desire for peace or our

conviction that international law must prevail.

Uruguay truly takes the principles of the Charter and

the purposes of this Organization as its own, from the

maintenance of peace and security — reflected in the fact

that our country contributes the largest number of troops

per capita to international peacekeeping operations — to the

recognition of the primacy of international law — reflected

in our being the first country to unconditionally accept the

compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of

Justice. Our position with regard to the United Nations is

thus consistent with our historical definition of ourselves as

a nation, a definition anchored in respect for international

commitments and strict compliance with the principles of

international law in all areas in which States bear

responsibility.

With reference to the agenda for the present session,

and without prejudice to the statements the delegation of

Uruguay will be making in the various bodies of the

Assembly, we believe it appropriate to make a few brief

comments on some items of particular interest.

It is clear that the reform of the Security Council has

captured the attention of the international community,

precisely because of the post-cold-war changes I have

mentioned. The potential impact of the Council on the

evaluation, prevention or easing of international conflicts,

and the effective application of the principle of legal

equality among States make it necessary to have greater

democratization or transparency in the decision-making

process and more equitable geographical distribution in

the composition of the Council.

Uruguay has already expressed its support for

increasing the number of permanent members on the

Council in the light of present-day world realities, but the

number of non-permanent members should also be

increased, precisely because of the need for greater

transparency and greater representativeness. While many

proposals for change have been put forward, we should at

the very least all agree that the Council’s future

composition should be designed so that the quest for more

representativeness does not adversely affect the Council’s

operational efficiency.

With regard to the question of Palestine and the

situation in the Middle East, and despite the various

obstacles that continue to hamper the consolidation of a

broad and stable peace, it is essential that the international

community maintain its support for the peace process

initiated in Madrid in 1991. In the same spirit, it should

continue to encourage direct talks between Israel, the

Palestinian Authority and the Arab countries — as is

occurring even today in the United States — with a view

to achieving mutual recognition and the ultimate objective

of a lasting peace throughout the Middle East. We are

confident that the talks taking place in Washington will

culminate in the success to which we all aspire, and to

which they seem to be leading.

In another context, integration processes are

indispensable for fair competition in a world of

subregional blocks. In this regard, the countries of the

Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR) are

convinced that our integration process contributes to a

true liberalization of trade. MERCOSUR constitutes an

integrated, open process that has created economic zones

both inside and outside the subregion. Thus, impetus has

6

been given to association with other States of the

hemisphere, with other regional blocs and with countries

outside the region. But above all, MERCOSUR has

generated trade, both inside and outside the organization.

MERCOSUR is today a demonstration of open regionalism,

which affirms the commitments and, above all, the

teachings of the World Trade Organization.

There is no question that free trade has been and

remains one of the cornerstones of world economic

development, as was repeatedly recognized during the

Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT). For this very reason, we cannot endorse

unilateral efforts to effect the extraterritorial application of

domestic legislation and as a consequence of which,

whether by virtue of their letter or their spirit, a country

would be able to extend the applicability of its laws beyond

its own national borders, undermining not only the principle

of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States but

also freedom of trade, which is the very essence of the

World Trade Organization, recently established by the

international community.

While our hopes for the establishment of

representative democracy throughout our continent remain

as strong as ever, we continue to oppose the unilateral

application of economic, trade or financial measures against

a State for political purposes. The usefulness of such

measures for the rapid and peaceful transition of a country

towards democracy has not yet been demonstrated.

With regard to cooperation for development, we recall

that the countries with greater capacities to contribute

undertook to allocate at least 0.7 per cent of their gross

domestic product for that purpose. Yet there has been a

significant downward trend in contributions stemming from

that commitment in recent years, and this trend cannot be

linked to the financial crisis the Organization is

experiencing. These are resources intended to fight poverty

and underdevelopment and to create more dignified living

conditions for our peoples. Nor should we confine

cooperation to a vertical, one-way process; rather, we must

also view it in terms of South-South cooperation, availing

ourselves of our mutual experience to create our own

competitive advantages.

A few days ago, Uruguay became one of the first

signatories to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Together with other developments, such as the Advisory

Opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the

legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, this

Treaty constitutes a basic instrument for the reaffirmation

of the principles of international peace and security.

Still in the field of disarmament, we have repeatedly

voiced our opposition to the transfer, stockpiling, export

and production of anti-personnel landmines. Accordingly,

we shall continue to support keenly all initiatives aimed

at eliminating them, as well as at securing the immediate

entry into force of the Protocol adopted in Vienna last

May. Uruguayan contingents assigned to peacekeeping

Missions in Angola, Mozambique and Western Sahara

have been among the many victims of these weapons, and

it is the moral obligation of humankind to eradicate them.

Finally, we should like to close by referring to one

of the clearest and most tangible manifestations of the

phenomenon of globalization we have sought to describe:

the production, trafficking and consumption of illegal

drugs. This is one of the most tragic forms of

international organized crime, and its growing seriousness

is demonstrated by statistics from the most varied sources.

Its transnational nature makes it essential that the

principle of shared responsibility should be systematically

applied — without exception or unilateralism — to the

entire cycle of production, trafficking and consumption.

This is a tightly wound chain whose links include all

countries without exception.

Please accept, Mr. President, our sincerest

congratulations on your election to guide the work of the

Assembly and the firmest commitment of the Government

of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to support you in

your activities.