Cuba, 2002

A

year ago, the General Assembly had to be postponed

because of the ruthless crime committed on 11

September. There was then a worldwide wave of

solidarity towards the people of the United States and,

particularly, towards the families of the almost 3,000

innocent victims of that unjustifiable terrorist attack.

The conditions were created for setting up a

genuine international alliance under the auspices and

leadership of the United Nations, with absolute respect

for the purposes and principles enshrined in its Charter.

Nearly all countries, above and beyond ideological,

political, cultural and religious differences, expressed

our willingness to collaborate actively with this

endeavour of unmistakable common interest.

However, another vision was imposed. In an

unusual fashion, it was stated that whoever did not

support the war decided upon by a single country

would then be on the side of terrorism. It was even

announced to the Security Council that that country

reserved the right to launch future attacks on its own

against other nations. A unilateral war was then

unleashed, whose death toll is still unknown to us and

whose most tangible consequence is probably the blow

to the credibility of the United Nations and to

multilateralism as a means to cope with the complex

challenges currently ahead of us.

What is the outcome today? There are greater

feelings of hatred, vengeance and insecurity, which are

not helpful in the fight against terrorism. Dangerous

xenophobic and discriminatory tendencies threaten the

existence of a plural and democratic world. There has

been a step backward in the field of public freedoms

and civil rights.

In the meantime, there is a lack of political will

by certain powers to rigorously apply, without

selectivity and without double standards, the 12

existing international legal instruments on terrorism. In

addition, no advances have been made in the definition,

so indispensable today, of State terrorism.

For its part, Cuba — a victim of terrorist acts for

over four decades, which stated its opinions in the

Assembly with poise and firmness and unwaveringly

condemned the crime of September 11 and terrorism as

such, but which also opposed the war out of ethical

considerations and the respect for international law —

signed and ratified the 12 international conventions to

combat terrorism and adopted a national law to fight

this scourge. It has cooperated fully with the work of

the committee set up for such purposes by the Security

Council and, at the bilateral level, it proposed to the

United States Government the adoption of a

programme to combat terrorism, which was,

incomprehensibly, rejected by that Government.

Until today, and despite the fact that it has not

developed and has no intention ever to develop nuclear

weapons, Cuba has not been a State party to the Treaty

on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for it is

an insufficient and discriminatory instrument allowing

the establishment of a club of nuclear powers without

any concrete disarmament commitments. However, as a

signal of the clear political will of the Cuban

Government and its commitment to an effective

disarmament process that ensures world peace, our

country has decided to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In doing so, we

reaffirm our hope that all nuclear weapons will finally

be totally eliminated under strict international

verification.

20

In addition, and despite the fact that the only

nuclear power in the Americas pursues a policy of

hostility towards Cuba that does not rule out the use of

force, Cuba will also ratify the Treaty for the

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and

the Caribbean, known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco, that

was signed by our country in 1995.

On a day like today, I would like to repeat Cuba's

remarks at the last session of the General Assembly:

“Only under the leadership of the United

Nations will we be able to defeat terrorism.

Cooperation, and not war, is the way. The

coordination of actions, and not imposition ... is

the method. ...

“Cuba reiterates its condemnation of

terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations.

Cuba reiterates that it will not allow its territory

ever to be used for terrorist acts against the

people of the United States or of any other

country.” (A/56/PV.50, pp. 21 and 22)

Why have we not seen the same zeal with which

the war in Afghanistan was unleashed in the search for

a just and lasting solution for peace in the Middle East?

Why have some refrained from uttering even a single

word to condemn the aggressions against the territory

of Palestine and the crimes against its people? Why has

there not been any condemnation of the selective

assassinations and the use of the armed forces against

the civilian population? Why are there assurances of

impunity for the actions of the Israeli army, thus tying

the hands of the Security Council? Why have there not

been any firm actions to implement the Security

Council resolutions that ensure the proclamation of an

independent and sovereign Palestinian State, with East

Jerusalem as its capital? Why is the only superpower

on the planet acting differently from one case to the

other? Why is there no end to the suffering of the

Palestinian mothers whose children are also murdered,

like the innocent people on 11 September? These

questions should be answered by those who in this Hall

carry upon their shoulders the responsibility for what is

currently happening in the occupied Palestinian and

Arab territories.

A new war against Iraq already seems inevitable;

an aggravation of the situation of constant aggression

that that people has lived in over the last ten years. The

buzzword now is “pre-emptive war”, in open violation

of the spirit and the letter of the United Nations

Charter.

Cuba defends principles, not expedience.

Therefore, although its supporters may feel upset, it

emphatically opposes this war. Cuba is not driven by

an anti-American spirit, even when its Government

maintains and strengthens a 40-year-old blockade

against our people. But refraining from telling the truth

out of cowardice or political calculation is not

characteristic of Cuban revolutionaries. Therefore,

Cuba hereby states that it opposes a new military

action against Iraq. It does so while recalling that at

one point it supported the Security Council resolution

asking the Iraqi Government to end the occupation of

Kuwait.

We believe that the development of weapons of

mass destruction today would be insane, because the

only possible way that we envision for world peace is

through general and complete disarmament, including

nuclear disarmament, and the rechannelling of the

money currently spent on weapons to address the dire

socio-economic problems of humankind.

The Arab countries have been emphatic in their

rejection of this war, and most European countries do

not approve of it. The international community is

increasingly concerned about the announcement of a

new war on the basis of unconfirmed allegations and

disregarding the obvious reality that Iraq cannot pose a

danger to the United States.

If the United States Government unleashes a new

war against Iraq, either by imposing it on the Security

Council or by deciding upon it unilaterally in

opposition to international public opinion, we will bear

witness to the emergence of a century of unilateralism

and the forced retirement of the United Nations. It will

then seem that the cold war years — with its distant

memory of bipolarism, mistakes and contradictions —

were not as futile and perilous as the era that is now

inexorably looming over the world.

The United Nations has to be saved. Cuba

defends the need both for its preservation and for its

most profound reform and democratization, but all this

must be accomplished through respect for its Charter

and not by rewriting it or distorting its purposes and

principles. The General Assembly must ultimately be

allowed to play the role laid down for it in the Charter.

The Security Council has to be rescued from the

disrepute and doubts that are so rightly weighing it

21

down, so that it may become a truly representative

body. I am talking about the presence of the third world

and not about military power as a justification for

membership of a democratic body; I am talking about

eliminating the veto and other antidemocratic practices

from a transparent body; and I am talking about putting

an end to the secret conspiracies and to the substantive

decisions made in private by a mere few and then

imposed on the rest.

Today, when it is more threatened than ever, Cuba

strongly defends the need to preserve multilateralism in

international relations. That is why we have witnessed

in frustration the disappointing completion of the

negotiations for the establishment of the International

Criminal Court, which Cuba supported on the

understanding that it would be a truly impartial, non-

selective, efficient and independent body to

complement national justice systems. To use the

Security Council as a tool to amend de facto the

international treaty that gave birth to the Court, or to

impose upon others humiliating bilateral agreements,

compelling them to violate their international

obligations deriving from that instrument, is not only

arrogant, but also irresponsible.

The International Criminal Court now vaunted is

not the body that we need and have fought for, subject

as it is to hegemonic political interests and already a

potential victim of manipulation, and bound from its

inception to the decisions of a permanent member of

the Security Council. What real international justice

can be expected of a body that lacks a definition of the

crime of aggression or that will receive instructions

from the Security Council either to call off or to

postpone a trial indefinitely at the request of one of its

permanent members? Who can guarantee that the Court

will not end up becoming an instrument at the service

of interventionism and domination by the most

powerful countries?

Cuba reiterates here today what it expressed at

the recent Johannesburg Summit: a reworking of

international financial institutions is called for. A

legitimate replacement for the International Monetary

Fund is called for. It is essential that the work of the

World Bank be aimed at supporting the genuine

exercise by over 130 third world countries of their right

to development. It is essential that the United Nations

system be provided with new financial resources to

fight poverty, underdevelopment, disease and famine. It

is essential that the World Trade Organization be

rescued from the interests of a handful of rich and

powerful countries and transformed into an instrument

at the service of a fair and equitable international

trading system.

The meagre results derived from the Monterrey

and Johannesburg conferences and the justified wave

of annoyance and uncertainty in their wake once again

raise the issue of the lack of political will by the major

industrialized Powers to relinquish a portion of their

privileges in order to produce a real change in the

unfair and unsustainable world order that is currently

visiting impoverishment and hopelessness upon two

thirds of the planet's population.

I recognize that Cuba's remarks may not be

accepted by some in this Hall. I even understand that

they could be interpreted as a tirade against a country

in particular. However, that is not the reason. Words

must be used to uphold the truth and that is what Cuba

has done and will always do. We are a small, noble

people that long ago proclaimed that, for all Cubans,

“motherland is humankind”.