Cuba, 2003

Last

century bore witness to two terrible world wars, in

which over 80 million human beings perished. It later

seemed that, due to the lessons learned, the United

Nations Organization was born so that war would never

again occur. The Charter, adopted in San Francisco

nearly 60 years ago, proclaimed the purpose of saving

succeeding generations from the scourge of war'.

However, after that we suffered wars of aggression and

conquest, colonial wars, border wars and ethnic wars.

Many peoples were left with no other choice but war to

defend their rights. Moreover, in the last 13 years the

scourge of war has taken another 6 million lives.

Sixty years ago, the world order proclaimed in

the United Nations Charter was sustained through the

military balance of two super-Powers. A bipolar world

was born, which generated clashes, divisions, the cold

war and almost a devastating nuclear war. It was not

the ideal world, far from it. But since one of those

super-Powers has disappeared, the current world is

worse and more dangerous.

Now world order cannot be held together in the

spheres of influence of two similar super-Powers or by

mutual deterrence. What should it be founded on, then?

On the honest and generous recognition by the only

super-Power that, far from disturbing it, should

contribute to the creation of a peaceful world, with the

right to justice and development for all.

Does the war in Iraq contribute to that objective?

No, it does not. Its outcome is just the opposite of the

ideal of preserving peace, strengthening the role of the

United Nations and enhancing multilateralism and

international cooperation. Unfortunately, the truth is

that those most able to prevent and remove threats to

peace are the ones causing war today.

Should the Government of the United States

recognize this truth that almost everyone in this Hall

shares? Yes. What humiliation or harm would there be

to the prestige of this great nation? None. The world

would recognize that a remedy benefiting all had come

about, after the unleashing of a war supported by just a

few, either by shortsightedness or by meanness of

interests; after it was proven that the pretexts brandished

were not true; and after observing the reaction of a people

who, as every invaded and occupied people will do,

have begun to fight and will continue to fight for

respect for their right to self-determination.

23

Therefore, must the occupation in Iraq cease?

Yes, and the sooner the better. It is a source of new and

more serious problems, not of solutions. Must the

Iraqis be left alone to freely establish their own

Government and institutions and make decisions on

their natural resources? Yes. It is their right, and they

will not stop fighting for it.

Must the Security Council be pressured into

adopting decisions that would further undermine it

ethically and morally? No. That would eliminate the

last possibility to profoundly reform, expand and

democratize the Council. The future of the United

Nations will be determined today in the outcome of the

international crisis generated by the war in Iraq.

The most critical danger stalking us today is the

persistence of a world where what prevails is the law of

the jungle, the might of the most powerful, the

privileges and extravagance of a handful of countries,

and the dangers of aggression, underdevelopment and

hopelessness for the vast majority.

Will a worldwide dictatorship be imposed on our

peoples, or will the United Nations and multilateralism

be preserved? That is the question. We all agree, I believe,

that the role of the United Nations is irrelevant today, or at

least is on its way to being so. But some of us say so with

concern and would like to strengthen the Organization.

Others say so with covert satisfaction and encourage

the hope of imposing their designs on the world.

We must speak frankly. What role does the

General Assembly play today? In truth, almost none. It

is merely a debating forum without any true influence

or practical role whatsoever.

Are international relations governed by the

purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter? No.

Why now, when philosophy, the arts and science are

reaching unprecedented levels, is the superiority of

some peoples over others once again proclaimed? And

why are other peoples, who should be treated as

brothers and sisters, referred to as living in the dark

corners of the planet or on the Euro-Atlantic periphery

of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Why do

some among us feel entitled to launch a unilateral war,

given the fact that in the Charter we proclaimed that

military force would only be used to serve the common

interest and that collective measures should be taken to

preserve peace? Why is there no longer any talk about

using peaceful means to settle disputes? Can we

believe that everyone is fostering friendship among our

nations on the basis of respect for the principle of

equality of rights and the self-determination of

peoples? Why then has my people had to suffer, and

continue to suffer, from over four decades of

aggression and economic blockade?

The principle of the sovereign equality for all

States was established when the Charter was adopted.

Are we in fact equal? Do all Member States enjoy

similar rights? According to the Charter we do, but

according to stark reality we do not. Respect for the

principle of the sovereign equality of States, which

should be the cornerstone of contemporary

international relations, will only be established if the

most powerful countries accept in real terms that they

must respect the rights of others, even if those other

countries lack the military might and the economic

power to defend those rights. Are the mightiest and

most developed countries ready to respect the rights of

others, even if doing so might perhaps slightly restrain

the privileges they enjoy? I am afraid that they are not.

Are the principles of the non-use or the threat of use

force, non-interference in the internal affairs of States,

the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for the

territorial integrity and independence of States actually

in force? According to the language and the spirit of

the Charter, they are. But are they really?

It is true that a handful of developed countries has

benefited from the current situation over the last few

decades. But that time is coming to an end. Those

countries are also beginning to become victims of the

imperial policies of a single super-Power. Should they

not take into account, with modesty and common sense,

the need to work with the over 130 Third World countries

that have been compelled to endure this unjust order and

that are ready to attempt to persuade the most powerful

country to put aside its arrogance and to comply with

its duties as a founder of the United Nations?

Cuba believes that we should not, and cannot,

relinquish multilateralism; that we should not, and

cannot, relinquish the United Nations; and that we

cannot, and should not, relinquish the struggle for a

world of peace, justice, equality and development for

all. Cuba therefore believes that we must achieve three

immediate objectives.

First and foremost, we must put an end to the

occupation of Iraq, hand over real control to the United

Nations immediately and begin the recovery process to

re-establish Iraq's sovereignty and put in place a

24

legitimate Government decided upon by the Iraqi

people. In addition, the scandalous distribution of

Iraq's wealth must cease immediately. That will be

beneficial for the United States, whose young people

are dying in Iraq while waging an unjust and inglorious

war. It will be beneficial for Iraq, whose people will be

able to turn over a new page in their history. It will be

beneficial for the United Nations, which has also been

a victim of that war. And it will be beneficial for all of

our countries, which have had to suffer international

economic recession and an increase insecurity that is

threatening us all.

Secondly, we must address without delay the

issue of truly reforming the United Nations and, above

all, undertake a far-reaching democratization process.

The current situation is already untenable, as

evidenced, first of all, by the Security Council's

shameful inability to prevent the war in Iraq and,

secondly, by its demand on the Government of Israel to

refrain from expelling or murdering the leader of the

Palestinian people a people who, in accordance with

a decision the Council itself took over five decades

ago, should long ago have had an independent State.

That the Government of the United States has exercised

its veto power on 26 occasions to protect the crimes of

Israel is evidence of the fact that that unjust privilege

must be abolished.

What is needed is a reform that goes back to the

roots of the founding of the United Nations; that

guarantees effective respect for the Charter; and that

re-establishes the mechanisms of collective security

and the rule of international law. Reform should also

ensure the ability of the United Nations to preserve

peace and to lead the fight for general and complete

disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, to which

many generations have aspired. Reform should also

restore to the United Nations its prerogatives to fight

for the socio-economic development and the basic

rights of all the planet's inhabitants, including the

rights to food and life. Doing so is more necessary than

ever before, given that neo-liberalism has spectacularly

failed and that a new opportunity now exists for

establishing a new system of international economic

relations. We need to rescue the role of the United

Nations and to ensure that all States, large and small,

respect the Charter. But we do not need a reform that is

going to founder unceremoniously as part of a

bureaucratic process of adapting what is left of the

United Nations to the interests and whims of a few, rich

and mighty countries.

Finally, we need to return to a discussion of the

serious economic and social problems currently

affecting the world. We have to make the battle for the

right of nearly five billion people to development a

priority. The Millennium Assembly committed us to

working for very modest and insufficient goals. But

everything has now been forgotten, without even a

discussion. Seventeen million children under the age of

5 will die this year, not as victims of terrorism but as

victims of under-nourishment and preventable diseases.

Will a realistic debate based on solidarity be held in

this Hall to discuss how, in line with the Millennium

Declaration, to halve by 2015 the number of people,

currently over 1.2 billion in number, who are suffering

from abject poverty, as well as the number who suffer

from hunger, which is more than 800 million? Will

there be any discussion about the nearly 900 million

illiterate adults? Or will the Millennium Declaration

also become a dead letter, as has been the case with the

Kyoto Protocol and the decisions of 10 summits held at

the level of head of State?

Developed countries will provide Third World

countries with $53 billion in official development

assistance this year. In return, those countries will

charge recipients over $350 billion in foreign debt

interest; and our foreign debt will have grown by the

end of the year. Do creditors by any chance believe that

that unjust situation will last forever? Should we, as

debtors, resign ourselves to being poor forever? Is that

picture of injustice and peril confronted by most

countries what the founders of the United Nations

really dreamed of? No. Like us, the founders also

dreamed that a better world was possible.

Those are the questions that, with all due respect,

we would like some in the Hall to answer for us. I am

not talking about Cuba, which, condemned to die for

wanting to be free, has had to fight on its own, not only

thinking about itself but also about all the peoples of

the world.