Belize, 1996

In this fifty-first year of the

United Nations, we are particularly happy to see

Mr. Razali Ismail presiding over this Assembly. This is

in no small measure due to his well-deserved high

reputation. In large measure, too, our joy comes from my

Government’s appreciation of the deep commitment of his

Government to national and international economic

improvement with equity. We are grateful, too, for the

excellent services rendered by his predecessor, Mr. Diogo

Freitas do Amaral, in a year in which, under his guidance,

reform of the United Nations system truly gathered

momentum.

Today it is often remarked that there are many signs

of the diminishing role of national sovereignty. In the

sphere of human rights, the regional adjudicatory systems

continue to flourish. Scrutiny is increasingly given by the

regional bodies and by such other groupings as the

Commonwealth of nations. We have good reason to

believe that the new commonwealth of Portuguese-

speaking nations will soon travel along the same path. At

21

the United Nations, the General Assembly, the Economic

and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Commission on Human

Rights and the human rights treaty bodies all continue to

scrutinize States for their rectitude in the field of human

rights. It certainly seems that the High Commissioner for

Human Rights, together with the Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other

executive agencies, are performing a useful watchdog and

catalytic function.

While this Organization’s efforts at humanitarian

intervention have not been overwhelmingly successful, they

have certainly provided evidence of the probable reality that

absolutist notions of State sovereignty are in decline. Thus,

we witness the acknowledgement, by States, of shared

interests which contribute to enhanced cooperation in joint

efforts to combat the trafficking of narcotics and to

preserve and regenerate the environment. Recently, too, the

Organization of American States launched an initiative that

points in the same direction: the inter-American convention

against corruption.

Corruption has been a scourge throughout our region,

as it is elsewhere. In our region, therefore, we have

determined drastically to reduce its impact, even if that

might have implications for State sovereignty. In the same

way, the flurry of conventions and new organizations on the

global environment, and the outpourings of the recent

global conferences and summits on social and other issues

bear witness to the rapid erosion of absolutist notions of

sovereignty.

During the past year efforts have been to bring into

being the long-awaited International Tribunal for the Law

of the Sea. Despite certain regrettable limitations, the

Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, the new

tribunal for international trade disputes, has now issued its

first judgment. We have also settled down to serious work

in preparing for an international criminal court, just as the

Tribunals for the prosecution of war crimes in the former

Yugoslavia and in Rwanda are getting under way. These all

constitute a significant development in the international

system, in which the State and its citizens are increasingly

made subject to international scrutiny.

We must insist, however, that what is sauce for the

goose is sauce for the gander. We therefore expect that

large States, as well as small States, will fully submit

themselves to these new Tribunals. We also fully expect

that powerful States will refrain from exerting their

sovereign wills over smaller or weaker States.

On a different subject, we have also witnessed a

certain contraction of the public sector both within nations

and international organizations. The attrition of the

national budgets of capital-exporting and donor countries

has had a domino effect on international organizations

and capital-importing and recipient countries. So-called

reductions in force and other forms of structural

adjustment have therefore become a painful way of life.

In this respect, this Organization and my country and

many others have not been spared. At the same time, my

country and many others have now established modern

and rational systems for the imposition and collection of

indirect taxes and other revenues. I refer especially to the

value-added tax, the use of which is now virtually

universal.

Like most Governments, mine has had to trim

several vital services. Everywhere, Governments are

obliged to experiment with the privatization of many

former State functions and have liquidated large chunks

of State property. Even as these changes occur within

many economies and Governmental structures, other

actors have stepped onto the national and international

stage. These actors, of course, include civil society and

the non-governmental organizations, which now

participate in almost every aspect of life.

At the same time, we are trying to understand and

cope with the novel phenomenon of globalization.

Globalization has several positive aspects, especially

liberalization, which it presupposes. However,

globalization also seems to presuppose the

universalization of mammoth private-sector enterprises

and associations. This universalization is accompanied by

revision or, in places, the reversal of aspects of such legal

and economic doctrines as those that disapproved of

excessive industrial combinations and monopolies.

Nevertheless, globalization is a logical

accompaniment to the reduction of the scope of

sovereignty. But just as a loss of national autonomy is not

an unalloyed blessing, this newfangled gigantism is too

massive to be swallowed whole. For one thing,

globalization as we are witnessing it today is an

unprecedented phenomenon, even for the former empires.

Whatever its advocates may say, it sometimes seems to

contradict our very humanity, since the micro-dimension

should never be neglected in the face of the

macro-dimension. Both dimensions are essentially

complementary. Globalization, furthermore, sometimes

denies the tenets of, and the recent directions in,

individual and collective human rights. This is because,

22

when it is taken to its logical extreme, as it is in several

places, it seems to lead to an international euthanasia. It

contributes to a “dinner-table scraps” mentality, or a “crabs-

in-the-basket” attitude, whereby the disadvantaged might

starve to death or destroy others in order to survive, while

those who are more advantaged are enabled to gorge even

more.

Furthermore, certain forms of assertive globalization

also fly in the face of diversity. They are anathema to

cultural, social and economic pluralism, whose validity is

uncontrovertible in socio-biological terms. As globalization

is increasingly manifested in the electronic and

communications media, these problems loom very large as,

throughout the world, we see our youth taking on the

mind-sets and the habiliments of corrupt, alien trend-setters

who are mainly interested in purveying unnecessary

products and creating false desires. As well we know, the

consequences are often mindless violence and sexual and

other exploitation of women, children and the weak. Surely

this Organization must seek to ensure that these

consequences are eradicated.

Globalization and the decline of State sovereignty

evidence the dramatic changes sweeping the globe, a

subject on which many of us often comment from this

rostrum. Change is indeed the order of the day, and change,

in these specific respects, is actually part and parcel of this

Organization and its Charter. After all, despite the fact that

some would spin theories to the contrary, the very

conception of the United Nations Charter was an

enthronement of the doctrine of reduced sovereignty. Only

by reducing sovereignty could the excesses that were

evident before and during the Second World War be

curtailed. Clearly, the very conception of the United

Nations presupposes a type of essential globalization.

It is therefore surprising how, in some quarters,

globalization by private economic actors pursuing or

motivated by the dictates of acquisitiveness, cupidity or

what is referred to as “efficiency” can be applauded, while

similar but much more modest behaviour by groups of

sovereigns is now decried. We urge that one crucial key to

meaningful reform of the United Nations must surely be

enthronement of this Organization’s globalism. We must,

indeed, enhance efficiency by rationalizing the managerial

structure of the United Nations and the ways in which we

select its executives, as was intelligently suggested in the

latest edition of the important study by Urquhart and

Childers, entitled A World In Need of Leadership.

We must act globally by harnessing in common the

shared resources of the planet. We repeat our call from

previous general debates that this Organization, in keeping

with its global function, must be given autonomous

revenue authority in certain areas not presently in the

domain of nation States. We must acknowledge the utility

of the concept of a modest, truly representative and

revocable trusteeship over certain ocean and aerial spaces.

We may also wish to acknowledge the fact that the

nuclear Powers are merely revocable trustees over nuclear

weapons, even as we move towards ending all forms of

nuclear testing and comply with the recent Advisory

Opinion of the International Court of Justice requiring the

prompt negotiation, in good faith, of nuclear disarmament.

At the same time, we must eradicate everywhere the bitter

arsenals of mines and other injurious weapons and

noxious substances, and ensure that substances such as

nuclear waste do not pass through our territorial or other

waters.

Responsible globalism will reap for the world the

fruits of the promises made in connection with this

Organization’s wartime antecedents: that economic, social

and all other forms of development are the absolute

heritage of under-possessed and dispossessed individuals,

peoples and nations. We are under a strict obligation to

keep this Organization’s Agenda for Development on the

front burner. Belize has proposed that we should establish

an annual special session of this Assembly immediately

prior to the general debate, at which we would discuss

development policy and regenerate the political will

necessary continually to revise the complex Agenda for

Development and the commitments made in this

Assembly, as well as at the high-level global conferences

of this last decade of the twentieth century. At that annual

session, we could also effectively discuss certain specific

portions of the Second Committee items currently

discussed during the regular session.

Enlightened globalism will compel us, with alacrity

and dignity, to make good the humanitarian obligations of

this “one world” to the least-developed countries, to

Africa, to small developing islands and low-lying

developing coastal areas like Belize, to land-locked

countries and to other disadvantaged places. We should be

happy to do so without repeating any of the recent tired,

uncharitable and inaccurate nostrums about the death of

the obligation to accord economic preferences to poor

countries, even as we clamour that human rights and

23

humanitarianism have now been elevated to a place of

honour in the international pantheon.

Even as we extol the virtues of United Nations

globalism, we can discern another antidote or counterpart

to the gigantism of private-sector globalization. This is the

phenomenon of regionalism.

Regionalism is the concept that drives many current

proposals — including those of Belize — for reform of the

United Nations Security Council and is a suggested basis

for the selection of additional so-called permanent

members — privileged, although not serving indefinitely.

Incidentally, such a selection could be done entirely within

the region or, as is done in many cases at present, by the

Assembly.

Regionalism is the essence of Belize’s proposals for

shared seats on the Security Council, whereby adjacent or

proximate States can pool their resources to serve the

international community in that rather expensive enterprise.

We gratefully acknowledge the fact that Belize’s proposals

have attracted some attention.

Even as portions of Central Africa appear to teeter on

the brink, regionalism has been relatively effective and

remains the main hope for preserving peace and security in

several parts of this troubled world. It acknowledges the

reality that the Organization is not structured to carry out

peacemaking and peacekeeping undertakings on a sustained

basis.

My delegation also believes that regionalism can

become a critical element in the quest successfully to

confront the menace of narcotics without leading to

unwitting hegemonism.

We now see an abundance of formal arrangements for

subregional integration. These are occurring throughout the

five regions of the United Nations. Informal arrangements

also abound. These lead us to urge nations in all parts of

the world, as well as the global body politic, to explore

functional cooperation on a regional and subregional basis,

as we now try to do within the Association of Caribbean

States and as we have done for centuries in several

sub-areas of the Caribbean. We are now witnessing much

fruitful regional liberalization and the integration of labour

markets, competition policy, labour standards, monetary

systems, investments, technical cooperation and trade.

We are happy to witness such functional regionalism

in Africa, Asia, Europe and other parts of Latin America.

We are also witnessing a reordering of the globe as new

regions are identified and new relationships developed

between regions. Thus, instead of imagining that the

Pacific islands are worlds apart from the Caribbean and

Central America, as we did when we looked eastward at

them, we now see them as neighbouring fellow citizens

of the tropics as we look westward at them over our

fragile isthmus of Central America.

From this geopolitical vantage point as well, we see

East Asia as a partner to the Caribbean and Central

America. This helps us appreciate that the contemporary

approach to statehood fully justifies the aspirations of a

democratic Asian country that is one of the most

substantial players in the global economy for a greater

measure of political participation in the system of

international organizations. That country is Taiwan. In the

view of my delegation, such participation would be quite

consistent with prevailing notions of sovereignty. At the

same time, it is assumed that the territorial integrity of the

People’s Republic of China would be completely

unimpaired. We believe that the statehood and dignity of

the latter ancient, honourable and global Power should

and would be safeguarded in any situation we have

posited. Without meaning to interfere, we would hope

that, in this connection, as has been stated in other

contexts in these remarks, noblesse oblige.

Turning to another region, we must reiterate our

concern about the recent retardation of the peace process

between Israel and its neighbours. Again, we call for

improvement of conditions in southern Lebanon and

elsewhere and for the genuine autonomy that is the

birthright of the Palestinians.

Finally, we wish to suggest that regionalism,

including functional cooperation, will contribute

significantly to the fulfilment of the millennial dreams of

the architects of this great global Organization.