Cuba, 1993

I come from a free, small and sovereign

island in Latin America. My ancestors were able to shed the

yoke of a colonial empire and achieve an independence that,

since the moment of its birth, has been burdened by the

interventionist impositions of a foreign power. I belong to

a people that was able, for several generations, to forge an

authentic revolution, which also opened the path to hope for

other peoples of the Third World.

For these reasons, and as a Caribbean people, we are

doubly proud of having you, Mr. President, presiding over

this session. Because you are a son of that South that makes

us brothers, we are convinced that that world and its hopes

will not be ignored once again. In that just aspiration you

will certainly find Cuba’s support.

Conditions in the world have radically changed in less

than five years. Bipolar balance is being replaced by

unipolar hegemony. The world is increasingly plagued by

still insuperable contradictions between words and deeds.

While it is said that the threat of a nuclear holocaust has

disappeared, the poverty and underdevelopment that cause

misery and death are continuing. Millions of men, women

and children die every day, with no possibility of being

saved. It is said that the arms race between the superPowers has ended but, increasingly, there is a rush to

develop new weapons systems and even to introduce them

to outer space.

Today, the warlords aspire to rule the skies without

having resolved many of the problems on Earth.

Paradoxically, they argue that they lack the resources to do

so, while the world today is becoming increasingly

ungovernable because of them. The total budget of the

World Health Organization equals the expenditures caused

by three hours of the arms race. How can hunger in

Somalia be alleviated, for example, if for every dollar used

to feed the hungry, $10 are spent on the maintenance of

military operations in that country?

The existence of treaties on a partial ban of nuclear

tests and on a moratorium, or on the non-proliferation of

such weapons, is not enough. A single agreement would

suffice, one providing for general and complete disarmament

and for the use of the enormous resources that would thus

cease to be squandered for the final resolution of our

planet’s serious problems.

Regrettably, the end of the cold war has not resolved

any of the fundamental problems facing humankind; instead,

it has created many others. The sacred principles of

independence and national sovereignty are being shredded to

pieces, and are guaranteed only to a few powerful countries

whose views prevail even in this lofty Organization. The

United Nations was created, among other objectives, for the

achievement of a lasting peace, justice and equality in

international relations. Some things have been done, but

much remains to be done for the benefit of human beings

and of peoples.

While the longstanding problems of the Third World

persist and become more acute, aggravated by stagnation in

development assistance, what peace can we speak of? While

unequal exchange, external debt and the transfer of resources

from developing to developed countries - to mention but a

few examples - still persist, will there truly be peace? While

protectionist and discriminatory practices in international

trade prevail, and the terms of trade of developing countries

continue to deteriorate, will we honestly be able to achieve

justice?

Only through effective cooperation, radically

restructuring present international economic relations, would

poor nations be allowed to develop and to grow. The

initiatives adopted by the Organization by consensus are

countless yet we continue to be ignored by the most

powerful countries.

The new international economic order, three

international development strategies, four United Nations

development decades, at least four special sessions of the

General Assembly, a number of conferences on population,

environment, habitat, and even the Rio de Janeiro

Conference itself exemplify hopes placed by peoples the

world over in the United Nations, but without tangible

results. The selfishness and lack of political will faced by

the poor of this Earth, the children of colonialism, racism,

plundering and foreign intervention, are truly disappointing.

10 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

On the other hand, neo-liberal doctrines are now

rampant in the assistance programmes of the Organization,

proclaiming only the virtues of the market and of private

enterprise. Defending only these options means separating

populations of developing countries from the real production

of wealth. This accentuates the inequalities, attacks true

democracy, social development and the right of human

beings to achieve a productive and dignified life.

We the countries of the South are no more than

statistics to the North. Meticulous studies are carried out to

determine that we will be born in greater numbers, that more

of us will fall to disease and that more of us will die.

The quality of life of the generations that have been

born and have died while I speak would demand that those

bulky files where tragedies are noted in detail, would also

have the power to feed and heal the needy. Simply knowing

that we are dying in the countries of the South on this planet

will not prevent us from being buried.

The surviving third world has once again placed its

hopes in the preparation of an agenda for development and

is awaiting with interest the Secretary-General’s report on

the subject. A new frustration would be a luxury for which

we would never be forgiven by this suffering humanity.

The World Summit for Social Development to be held

in 1995 will also provide us with a new opportunity to place

human beings at the centre of the United Nations efforts, and

to give this subject the priority it deserves in the work of the

United Nations.

The world we live in is condemned to a gradual

destruction that can only be stopped by our collective

wisdom. The right to life, the most basic of human rights,

is constantly threatened by the progressive deterioration of

the ozone layer, by the pollution of the environment and its

underground and surface waters, by the exhaustion of arable

land and by the constant increase in the legions of the

undernourished and underemployed. This dehumanizing

cruelty is the result of what is mistakenly called

contemporary industrial civilization. Together with these

lacerating realities, humanity is facing other challenges

which, though different, are no less complex.

Recently, the World Conference on Human Rights

concluded by reaffirming the universality, interdependence

and indivisibility of those rights. That Conference rightly

reiterated that the issue must be dealt with in an objective,

impartial and non-selective manner.

Attempts are made to say that the majority of violations

of human rights originate in the impoverished countries of

the South, while an overwhelming majority of their accusers

come from the affluent countries of the North. It seems that

those who claim to be the resolute defenders of certain

individual freedoms, also include among those freedoms, and

with equal ease, the violence that increasing neo-fascist and

racist currents are unleashing in their own societies.

Has that North not been the source, and now more than

ever, of discrimination against migrant workers, against the

increasingly dispossessed strata of society and against

national minorities?

Who are the main beneficiaries of the trade in human

organs? Where are the deviant practices of pornography and

child prostitution, of drug addiction and the sale of minors,

most common? Are these by chance the individual freedoms

they defend with such zeal? Why are they not equally

intransigent in defence of the right to eat, to work, to learn,

to live a healthy life, to not suffer discrimination by reason

of sex or race, in other words the most basic rights of a

human being?

We all recognize the responsibility of the United

Nations in the field of the promotion of human rights and

fundamental freedoms in accordance with the United Nations

Charter. There are United Nations bodies that can

adequately carry out this responsibility if attempts are not

made to assign them functions with which they are

incompatible, if they are allowed to work objectively and

without political conditions, and if they are based on

cooperation and not imposition. This role must not and

cannot be distorted. Thus, the idea of creating a high

commissioner for human rights should be considered with all

necessary care and without undue haste, which we could in

the future regret.

In a similar context, those who reap benefits from the

existing international order are introducing into it their own

ideology. They are trying to impose those norms of

political, economic and social organization most likely to

preserve that order and irrationally defend their ideas

regarding the links between democracy, human rights and

the market economy, a new trilogy that masks the sufferings

of millions of persons.

It is necessary firmly to reject any and all attempts to

decide unilaterally on these issues of vital interest to all

peoples, and avoid their becoming new sources of conflict,

new obstacles to international cooperation and the unifying

role that humanity today expects of the United Nations.

Forty-eighth session - 4 October 1993 11

In order to fulfil the purposes enshrined in the United

Nations Charter and to allow the Organization to contribute

to ensuring peace, cooperation and development, it is urgent

to democratize the United Nations.

This would facilitate the finding of solutions to the

malformations with which the United Nations was born and

with which it developed, and its transformation into an

Organization devoted to truly strengthening cooperation

among peoples. It is not acceptable that at the dawn of the

twenty-first century, the United Nations continues to respond

to the interests of a handful of Powers.

The United Nations has not been and is not democratic.

A veto privilege linked with the might of States is

inadmissible, above all if the Security Council can become

a docile instrument in the hands of a few Powers, a risk

which is present now more than ever before. There is

nothing more insecure in this world, and I say this in all

sincerity, than the Security Council.

The full democratization of the Security Council would

require, among other measures, that all its members be

subject to periodic democratic elections, as is now the case

with non-permanent members. It would also require the

elimination of the veto privilege and the establishment of a

single category of members, which would be consistent with

the principle of the sovereign equality of States that must

become, once and for all, the cornerstone of the activities of

the Organization.

We are, nevertheless, conscious of the obstacles that at

present prevent us from achieving that objective, and we

consider it not only feasible, but indeed indispensable, to

progress in that direction.

The number of peoples present in this Hall has almost

quadrupled since 1945. It is therefore necessary to institute

a new order in the United Nations.

Cuba favours an increase in the membership of the

Council to reach a proportion, with respect to the total

membership of the United Nations, that is as close as

possible to that existing in 1945, and favours also a tripling

of the number of permanent members so that Latin America,

the Caribbean, Africa and Asia would have more than two

seats in that category, as is now the case for Europe.

Suffice it to say that more than 3,700 million inhabitants of

those continents, that is, two thirds of humankind, do not

enjoy that privilege.

It is also essential for the principle of equitable

geographical distribution to be ever present in the Security

Council, and not only among the non-permanent members

but among the totality of its membership. By so doing, we

would be advancing one step farther towards democratization

of the Council’s membership.

It is also indispensable to modify the operational

mechanisms of the Council and eliminate the practice of

so-called informal consultations, thereby increasing

transparency in the work of the Council. This is a need that

the Secretary-General recognizes in his latest report on the

work of the Organization. By the same token, it is not

permissible for the Council to go beyond its mandate and

interfere in fields that are not within its purview.

The adoption of measures to ensure greater participation

by the General Assembly on issues to do with the

maintenance and strengthening of international peace and

security, as a means for achieving the necessary balance

between the Assembly and the Security Council, cannot be

postponed. We cannot disregard the fact that, under the

Charter, the General Assembly is the only truly universal

body in the United Nations and that this gives it special

responsibilities. The Security Council acts on behalf of all

the Member States represented in this Hall and is

accountable to them. This accountability should therefore be

implemented through substantive and analytical reports from

the Council to the General Assembly that would allow the

Assembly not only to systematically consider and assess the

Council’s activities, but also to formulate necessary

recommendations.

There is undoubtedly a general will to revitalize the

Organization, but this objective should be achieved through

the fullest and most transparent consultations, guided, above

all, by the decisions taken by Member States.

Certain recent initiatives that, without any consultation

or mandate whatsoever, attempt to reinvent the priorities of

this Organization are cause for concern. There are even

proposals that seem to consider the United Nations as a

supranational body with a Secretariat acting as a universal

government, and implementing actions that not only lack an

appropriate legislative basis, but also confer on it

prerogatives that are far removed from its legitimate nature.

We call the Assembly’s attention to the dangers involved in

these attempts because, if their acceptance is forced through,

they would cause serious conflict that could endanger the

very integrity of the Organization.

12 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

Attention should also be called to the

implementation of certain new ideas and mechanisms in the

United Nations. Even if the resolutions regarding the report

entitled "An Agenda for Peace" were adopted unanimously

in this Hall, their implementation is not free of dangers that

could jeopardize the most sacred principles of the United

Nations. Nothing in those texts can justify violations of the

sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States

or interference in their internal affairs.

The excessive multiplication in the number of

peace-keeping operations and related procedures is also

cause for increasing concern. The proliferation in this type

of operation is no indication that the United Nations is

functioning better today than in the past; quite the contrary.

In any case, it is a symptom of the grave dangers that

threaten world peace and stability.

The resulting financial burden that is falling on the

shoulders of Member States is reaching unsustainable

proportions. Hence, we must prevent this increase from

becoming even more onerous for Member States, and in

particular for those of the third world.

In the last decade of the millennium, our world

nevertheless does show some rays of light. One of these is

that shed by the Ibero-American Summits, the most recent

of which was recently held in the Brazilian city of

Salvador da Bahia. I mention this as a valid example of

fraternal discussion, in which, without anything being

imposed by any party, issues of common interest were

defined and coordinated.

Recently also, the world learned of the signing of the

Declaration that, as a preliminary measure, recognizes

Palestinian autonomy over part of the occupied territories.

We hope that this development constitutes an effective step

towards the restoration of the legitimate right of the

Palestinian people to have their own State, in their own

national territory, and towards the definitive withdrawal by

Israel from the other occupied Arab territories, including

Jerusalem. This would be an important contribution to a

definitive solution to the Middle East conflict and to the

establishment of a just and lasting peace in that troubled

region.

Only a few days ago, in the Special Committee against

Apartheid, my delegation had the honour of hearing

Nelson Mandela. We are encouraged by his confidence in

the future, and we hope that the process of dialogue now

under way will be conducive to the establishment of a

united, democratic and non-racial South Africa. We are

ready to contribute, with our modest efforts, towards that

end.

In my country, a genuine revolution succeeded. Since

the outset, it has faced hostility from its neighbour but,

against all odds, it has been able to carry out, in solidarity,

its humane task. We have continued our endeavour even

now that international circumstances have radically changed.

Cuba is inserting itself into the world economy and is

opening up to foreign investment, but without the loss of any

of its principles. In order to continue to safeguard the

development of our people, we are also making profound

changes based on the concept of preserving our

independence and the gains we have already achieved. We

are indeed facing serious problems as a result of an inhuman

blockade, but we nevertheless continue to hold a prominent

place in the fields of health, education and social security,

which are guaranteed for all even in the midst of all our

difficulties. The results of these efforts have been

recognized this year by the United Nations and by the

United Nations Children’s Fund.

Attempts are being made to crush this dream. The

General Assembly, at its last session, adopted resolution

47/19, regarding the necessity of ending the economic,

commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United

States of America against Cuba. The resolution was

welcomed by international public opinion. Since then, there

has been an impressive rise in world-wide solidarity towards

our country, from every part of the world, from the most

diverse sectors and creeds, even in those wide swaths of the

population of the aggressor country that reject the measures

taken by their own Government. Sympathy has increased

for a people that for more than three decades has managed

to resist a ferocious siege by a huge, neighbouring Power,

with admirable gallantry in the midst of unimaginable

deprivation. Nevertheless, in open defiance of the decision

taken by the General Assembly and in defiance of world

opinion, the blockade has been reinforced during the last few

months by means of regulations cruelly implementing to the

utmost the same laws rejected by this forum less than a year

ago.

The extra-territorial nature of the blockade has

increased, and the pressures are on the rise. Actions have

multiplied to impede or affect the links with Cuba of private

and public economic entities in third countries. They aspire

to defeat by hunger and disease the exemplary nation which

they have not been able to vanquish by force or by siren

songs.

Forty-eighth session - 4 October 1993 13

It must be difficult for the illustrious representatives of

that great northern nation still to sustain today the thesis that

their actions constitute a bilateral embargo, in the face of the

irrefutable evidence that in fact those actions constitute a

blockade.

We have provided the Assembly with irrefutable

evidence of their ambition not only to maintain but also to

strengthen the blockade, to economically strangle my

homeland, to undermine the sovereignty of third States and

to violate the freedom of trade and navigation, to the

detriment of the most fundamental principles of international

law.

But there is more: if this is a case of bilateral relations,

then there are two blockaded peoples, that of Cuba and that

of the United States. North Americans are denied an

economic opportunity that would benefit them; they are

denied access to the scientific advances that already

guarantee the prevention and cure of diseases such as

meningitis, retinitis pigmentosa, hepatitis B and vitiligo,

among other achievements of our science. The right to

travel freely to any place, which their Constitution confers

on all citizens, is also infringed upon.

The blockade’s effect on my people is even more

inhuman. We are prevented from purchasing drugs essential

for health; our ability to acquire resources to meet the needs

for our material and social well-being is curtailed; our peace

and daily life is threatened. The generation to which I

belong was born and grew up under the blockade’s siege.

To live in a sovereign and steadfast country is a crime for

which two million children may have to pay with their lives.

We affirm before the peoples of the world that there

will be no possible absolution for those who commit or

support this genocide, because "to condone a crime is

tantamount to committing it". If against all logic our right

were to be denied, if aggressive forces were to prevail over

reason, Cubans will nevertheless always maintain their

unshakeable faith in victory. We love life, and life is

freedom, independence, sovereignty. We demand that the

path we have chosen be respected. It is not our desire to be

a model for anyone, but we will never accept either

imposition or force.

I know that my words will be understood in different

ways, but I have said what our conscience as free human

beings dictates. My words may be applauded as a matter of

solidarity, courtesy or obligation, but I know that there are

many who wish us to be successful, for that is what they

hope for themselves.

To you, Mr. President, I am thankful for having

allowed me to express the feelings of a worthy people.