Brazil, 2000

Brazil applauds your

election, Sir, to preside over the fifty-fifth session of

the General Assembly of the United Nations. Your

personal political experience and Finland's historic

contribution to the promotion of peace, human rights

and social development are valuable credentials that

you bring to the honoured task of chairing our work.

On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I pay

tribute to your predecessor, Foreign Minister Theo-Ben

Gurirab. His diplomatic skills and commitments to the

highest ideals of the United Nations insured him a

decisive role at the helm of the fifty-fourth session.

I wish to make a very special reference to our

Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. His moral authority

has served as a beacon as we strive to fulfil the

principles and goals of the United Nations. His report,

“We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the

twenty-first century”, is a contribution of fundamental

importance to the cause of peace and justice, and to a

stronger United Nations. It will serve as a permanent

source of inspiration as we ponder the crucial decisions

the Organization is called upon to make.

Brazil had the satisfaction to co-sponsor the

resolution bringing Tuvalu into the United Nations

family. We salute Tuvalu as our newest member.

For the sixth consecutive time it is my honour to

take part in the opening of the general debate. On all

previous occasions, I took stock both of the positive

and negative aspects of the current state of world

affairs, the facts that afford us satisfaction and those

that are cause for frustration and even indignation. This

is our daily challenge and the motivating force behind

our work.

We meet here for the last time this century. We all

know that the twentieth century has been marred by a

fundamental contradiction. We have seen a growing

abundance of intellectual and material resources that

should have brought about a greater convergence of

opportunities and expectations as well as of living

standards throughout the world. Yet, what we also saw

was a failure to harness the necessary political will to

translate those extraordinary possibilities into a reality

of progress shared by all. This applies not only to the

international community as a whole but is equally valid

for the great majority of nations represented here,

among which is Brazil itself.

No doubt, we have much to gain in identifying

those aspects of our relations with the international

environment that are a hindrance to national

development. Yet it is equally illuminating to seek

within our own countries examples of success and

failure that help explain the world we live in.

Globalization is asymmetrical in part because it flows

from national societies that are themselves socially

unbalanced and seem to have lost some of their urge to

bring about social justice.

Freedom — the greatest of values — continues to

advance on all fronts and in all continents. That is a

crucial development. There is cause for concern,

however, that the core values of equality and fraternity

are dangerously being put aside. It is imperative that

these two other essential elements return to the top of

our agenda. They must retake their rightful place at the

centre of our policy decisions before it is too late —

before some are misled into believing that the

inevitable price for preserving freedom is the

perpetuation of the divide between the rich and the

poor, between those who are included and those who

suffer exclusion, between the “globalized” and those

left behind.

If democracy and freedom are to put down firm

roots within our countries, we must foster a genuine

sense of solidarity that translates into effective action.

Only thus will we build an international order that is

conducive to the preservation of peace and can

function as an engine of sustained growth. It is

unacceptable that major global issues and campaigns

for transnational solidarity be manipulated and

exploited in order to disguise what amounts to the

protection of narrow interests. Unfortunately, this is

what is happening in the field of international trade.

First, the inconsistency between free trade

rhetoric and the continued use of protectionist policies

of various types by developed countries. As I stated at

the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle, the

name of this game is discrimination. And

discrimination, especially when waged against the

weakest, is the absolute negation of solidarity. We must

5

reverse these grave distortions in international trade,

and especially as concerns agricultural products.

It is inadmissible that the most prosperous

nations, whose economies are strongly based in the

manufacturing and service industries, should be legally

entitled to restrict access to their markets for

agricultural goods, while they call for the free flow of

those goods in which they benefit from an enormous

competitive advantage. It is even more intolerable that

these countries be allowed, as is presently the case, to

subsidize the production and export of agricultural

commodities to the tune of dozens of billions of

dollars. These policies cause enormous harm to

exporting nations that are more efficient and

competitive in this field, but lack the financial means

to offer equally generous fiscal incentives to their

farmers.

Secondly, not satisfied with the persistence of this

highly discriminatory situation — where what is said

often deviates from what is done — there are those in

the developed countries who give voice to sectional

interests and defend a new offensive against the

exports of developing nations. This is what the new

language of protectionism, camouflaged as

humanitarian internationalism, would seem to suggest.

It unfurls the seductive banner of labour and

environmental standards, which, if adopted, would

further restrict the access of products from developing

countries to the markets of rich countries.

This rhetoric and its appeal to certain segments of

public opinion might suggest that the exports of

developing countries pose a threat to the economic

well-being and the way of life of the more developed

societies. We all know this is not true. After all, these

exports represent less than a third of world trade and

are made up mostly of raw materials.

The main objective of those who wish to

introduce labour conditionalities into trade rules has

little to do with improving the quality of life of

workers in poor countries. Their fundamental aim is to

protect backward sectors of their own economies that

strictly speaking are no longer capable of competing

effectively in a free trade environment.

Sanctions and commercial barriers are inadequate

tools to enhance labour standards and to protect the

environment in developing countries. Our countries

and our own societies, more than any other, are

interested in achieving those very same objectives,

which is why we need more — not less — exports and

economic growth.

This is a message that developing countries must

make ring out in a clear and powerful voice. We must

instil in developed societies an understanding that they

are not alone in the world. Above all, they must not

presume to unilaterally write the rules of international

trade solely according to their interests and points of

view, as if the other 5 billion human beings did not

have equally legitimate aspirations to progress, justice

and well-being.

Nations must come increasingly to comprehend

and respect differing realities and objectives among

themselves. At the same time, they must recognize

their commonalties and affinities; explore and enlarge

areas of convergence and opportunities for cooperation;

and overcome suspicions, rivalries and disputes.

Nowadays it is above all through regional

integration that this learning process takes place. For

most countries, it opens the door to a more intensive

and meaningful participation in global affairs.

In the Americas, and more specifically in Latin

America, we have set ourselves firmly on this course.

The countries of the region are increasingly integrated

among themselves and into the world. These are the

two inseparable faces of the same forward movement.

A few days ago in Brasilia, on the initiative of

President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a meeting of

Presidents of South America took place for the first

time in our history. This gathering sought to bring

together the leaders of South America around the

common challenges that grow out of our shared

geography and physical proximity. It is only natural

that this first meeting should have occurred in Brazil,

which shares borders with nine of its 11 South

American neighbours, and has lived in harmony with

all for over a century in a spirit of peace, friendship

and growing determination to move ahead on the road

to full integration.

The Presidents took important and concrete steps

in this direction that will bear lasting fruit. In the

political realm, they agreed to underscore the

commitment of the countries of South America to

democracy and decided that participation in future

South American gatherings would hinge on the

preservation of the rule of law and full respect for

democratic values and procedures. They also agreed to

6

hold consultations among their Governments in the

event of a threat to democracy in our region.

In trade matters, they resolved to begin

negotiations on a free-trade zone between

MERCOSUR and the Andean Community, to be

established before January 2002 and to be expanded

into an economic zone covering all of South America,

including Chile, Guyana and Suriname. To this end the

Presidents decided to coordinate the planning and

funding of projects for integrating the region's

infrastructure, in particular in the priority areas of

energy, transport and telecommunications. By working

together in this way we will more quickly set up the

physical links that will enhance South American unity.

Drug trafficking and organized crime are issues

that affect, in different forms, all regions of the world.

The Presidents highlighted the role of the Organization

of American States in the fight against drugs in the

hemisphere and the setting up last year of the

multilateral evaluation mechanism to assess the

performance of our countries in this effort. They also

decided to establish systematic consultations among

national agencies and to set up a South American anti-

laundering task force.

The meeting of Presidents of South America was

an event unique in the almost two centuries of

independent nationhood for most of the subcontinent.

As well as having historic significance and long-term

impact, this summit will also generate results in the

immediate future.

None is more significant than the commitment to

democratic values. President Fernando Henrique

Cardoso was very much to the point when he said:

“the South America of today is synonymous with

democracy ... In this dawning of democracy, we

will not tolerate abuses. And we will increasingly

demand the right not only to vote, but to defend

freedom, access to information and the judicial

guarantees that make elections an effective

exercise in democracy”.

The United Nations has seen important

achievements over this last year. Let me recall a few.

The goal of creating a more just, tolerant society was

reaffirmed during the follow-up world conferences on

women — Beijing +5 — and on social development —

Copenhagen +5. At the Non-Proliferation Treaty

review conference, modest but nevertheless significant

progress was made towards freeing the world from the

scourge of nuclear arms. As one of the New Agenda

countries, Brazil is proud of its contribution to the

success of the conference, whose results will be a

litmus test for future advances in the nuclear

disarmament field.

Efforts to establish an International Criminal

Court have moved ahead, and Brazil signed the Rome

Statute. Those that commit crimes against humanity

must not, under any circumstances, go unpunished.

In the Brahimi report (A/55/305), a valuable

framework has been laid out on how to strengthen the

work of United Nations peacekeeping operations and,

as a result, on how to overcome recent failures. The

courageous Rwanda and Srebrenica reports offer us a

precise diagnosis of what needs to be done.

In Timor, under the leadership of a model

international official, Sergio Vieira de Mello, a new

State is taking form and coming to life. We express our

strongest condemnation of the attack on innocent

workers at the United Nations office in Atambua, West

Timor, who were helping to achieve this very goal.

In contrast with these achievements, the

frustrations are well known. Peacekeeping operations

in Sierra Leone and in the Democratic Republic of the

Congo have still to show results; the conflict in Angola

goes relentlessly on as a result of UNITA's inexcusable

failure to comply with international directives and law;

and there is growing awareness of the devastating

dimensions of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and in the

rest of the world.

Less than a week ago, in a historic meeting in this

very Hall, world leaders took stock of the work and

achievements of multilateralism. The outcome was a

clearer reaffirmation of our determined and

unequivocal commitment to reinvigorate the United

Nations. We reinforced our convictions about the

crucial role of this Organization in ensuring that justice

is done and that international peace takes root.

Brazil has always been convinced of this.

In the absence of the United Nations, human

rights would be more vulnerable; the distance between

antagonists would be wider; the difficulties in

eradicating poverty would be greater; the growth of

tolerance would be slower and democratic practices

would face even stronger opposition.

7

It may be that the Millennium Summit only gave

expression to what we already knew. The historic

legacy of this Summit should, then, be our renewed

willingness to act.

We all know that it is by mobilizing political will

that we can make a difference. The United Nations is

the model political forum of the international

community and its central goal is to provide the ways

and means to bring to life our dearest ideals, values and

aspirations.

In this hall there has often been a divorce

between words and deeds, between objectives and the

tools to achieve them, as if they hailed from different

universes, distant and isolated from each other.

It is only through political dialogue, and

consultation among States made possible by

multilateralism that a degree of rationality and

predictability can be brought to the workings of global

forces.

To foster multilateralism is to strengthen the

United Nations and the modern understanding of the

individual as the central beneficiary of international

action. Only thus can we look forward to progressive

and just governance in this integrated world.

It is our obligation to fulfil our common

commitments, so vigorously underscored during the

Millennium Summit. We must do so with determination

and a sense of urgency.