France, 1994

France is especially pleased, Mr. President, to see the

General Assembly meeting under your authority. At the

end of a year marked by the passing of an extraordinary

statesman, President Houphouët-Boigny, your election has

given the international community another occasion to

stop and think about the situation in the African continent,

which in recent months has brought us both hope and

tragedy.

In South Africa, a decisive evolutionary process took

concrete form this year in the first elections there with

universal suffrage. We can now express our joy at seeing

that country take its rightful place in the concert of

nations. The choice of the South African people, inspired

by outstanding men to whom France wishes again to pay

a tribute, provides an example for all those who aspire to

democracy, reconciliation and peace and gives them hope.

In Rwanda, on the other hand, an unprecedented

tragedy has set the international community’s

responsibility squarely before it. The Assembly is

familiar with the efforts made by France to respond to

that tragedy and with the support it managed to find,

primarily among the African States. The operation that

was carried out enabled us to shelter more than 3 million

Rwandans from the fighting. None the less, we have

found it necessary once again to say the word "genocide",

which, almost 50 years after the birth of the United

Nations, amounts to saying that the worst is still possible.

During the darkest years of the Second World War,

General De Gaulle spoke of the need to establish a world

order that could guarantee the security of all, to make

rational use of all the world’s riches and to bring together

all the people on the face of the Earth. The time has

come for us to rediscover the ideal that inspired the

12

generation of the founders and to ask ourselves with clarity

what means are necessary to implement it.

Almost everywhere in the world we are seeing the

positive movement of nation-States into groups. France

has made the building up of Europe one of the pillars of its

foreign policy. How could it not, then, encourage the

formation of new areas of solidarity?

The experience of building Europe, which began 40

years ago, is a case in point. It has done more than just do

away with the age-old rivalries that had led to two world

wars. In the western part of the European continent,

economic integration and political cooperation have attained

a level that is unmatched in the world.

Since the iron curtain ceased to exist, we have been

primarily concerned with expanding to all parts of Europe

the zone of peace and prosperity resulting from that

process. This explains our desire to speed up the

integration of the Central and Eastern European

democracies into the European Union. It also accounts for

our efforts to organize a partnership with Russia and the

States of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

The European Union, the Western European Union (WEU),

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

are all coooperating in the efforts towards this end.

Furthermore, it explains France’s initiative, taken up in turn

by the European Union, to establish a stability pact. This

is an ambitious exercise in preventive diplomacy, aimed at

resolving issues of relations between neighbours and of

minority groups, where such issues persist in the European

theatre.

Today Europe is a world power, as it demonstrated

during the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT) negotiations, at which its efforts led, notably, to

the establishment of a World Trade Organization (WTO).

This is a major success that will benefit all its member

countries by putting an end to unilateral practices and

guaranteeing fair and free trade. Europe is thus assuming

its international responsibilities. It is actively supporting

the peace processes in the Middle East, in southern Africa

and elsewhere. It has long been involved in the struggle to

achieve development, particularly through the Lomé

Conventions. It provides substantial financing everywhere -

the most in the world - for peoples mired in humanitarian

crises. Its actions prove that a genuine regional power can

benefit the entire international community.

New regional groups of solidarity are gradually

taking shape in all parts of the world. In Africa, France

supports the principle of an OAU mechanism for

preventing, handling and settling conflicts. We are ready

to help set up a military mechanism to enable the OAU

to intervene more quickly, under United Nations control,

in the framework of peace-keeping operations.

In South-East Asia, the countries of the Association

of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) are working to

strengthen their economic ties and to establish confidence-

building measures to reinforce the stability of the region.

France, which through the European Union was present

at ASEAN’s regional forum on security, held recently in

Bangkok, takes a special interest in the beneficial effects

this process should have on the countries of the Indo-

Chinese peninsula.

On the American continent, the entry into force of

the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

adds to the dynamism of existing regional organizations,

old and new.

Thus, perhaps, there may be such a group in the

Middle East as well, where progress in the peace process

allows us to envision the development of intensive

regional cooperation. The organization of all kinds of ties

among the countries concerned will help to establish

peace in the region, as will the search for solutions to the

political problems that are still pending. France can

therefore only repeat that we hope to see the boycotts

finally ended. Our financial support for the peace

process, as well as our active participation in the

multilateral negotiations, including participation in such

ultra-sensitive areas as regional security, reflect this very

same conviction.

Above and beyond that, France would like to see

Europe organize a forum for cooperation involving all the

Mediterranean States. We have, on the initiative of

Egypt, already made a contribution to the coming into

being of the Mediterranean Forum, which recently held its

first meeting in Alexandria. We will make this one of the

main goals of the French presidency of the European

Union in the first semester of the coming year.

Everywhere, then, the progress being made in

processes leading to integration and the establishment of

regional frameworks for cooperation reflects positive

trends. These organizations, however, have neither the

right nor the capability to do everything. It is the United

Nations that is and must remain the sole forum for

13

organizing peace and solidarity throughout the world. It is

up to the United Nations and to that Organization alone to

ensure international equilibrium since, in the last resort, it

alone has the power to decide on enforcement measures or

on the use of force. Regional organizations do contribute

to peace and international stability. They may indeed fulfil

missions in preventive diplomacy, but they must then be

inspired by the principles enshrined in the United Nations.

As regards peace-keeping, Chapter VIII of our Charter

expressly provides that the United Nations may, in certain

circumstances, employ the means at the disposal of the

regional organizations.

But when conflicts become exacerbated, when a crisis

calls for a mandatory solution, the Charter requires us to

turn to the Security Council, the sole authority having

power to decide on enforcement measures or on the use of

force other than for legitimate self-defence. The

justification for such measures may come only from the

will of the international community, and that is why the

Security Council, in our view, must exert its authority and

control at all stages of operations it may decide upon:

conception and approval of the mandate, the major phases

of implementation and the monitoring of implementation.

The adoption of a system of mandatory sanctions

against States that breach international legality is also a

prerogative of the Security Council. But, and we are very

keenly aware of this, this concerns serious, exceptional

measures whose purpose must be precisely defined to bring

pressure to bear on a Government to change its attitude.

That is the objective in such instances. France therefore

proposes that in future, when a resolution imposing

sanctions upon a Member State is to be voted upon, three

conditions must be met. These are, that all other

diplomatic avenues have been explored without success;

that the Council resolution state explicitly what actions the

targeted State should take in order for the sanctions to be

lifted; and that the maintenance of the sanctions should be

subject to regular review in good faith.

In the realm of disarmament, our Organization is once

again the sole forum where international commitments may

be entered into. Given this perspective, France ascribes

especial importance to the speedy ratification of the

Convention banning chemical weapons - the first

multilateral disarmament treaty - and thereby its entry into

force in 1995. France hopes to see our Organization make

progress towards strengthening the Convention banning

biological weapons and to see new efforts made to ban

anti-personnel mines. I was particularly pleased to hear

President Clinton endorse this very concept in his recent

statement to the Assembly. Finally, the requirement for

non-proliferation, which North Korea’s attitude compels

us to take especially seriously, must lead, at the 1995

Conference, to the unconditional and indefinite renewal of

the non-proliferation Treaty. In this same vein, France

reaffirms its support for the decision taken by the General

Assembly last year to begin negotiations on a

comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty that would be

internationally and effectively verifiable.

Over recent years, crisis prevention and crisis

management have absorbed the greater part of our efforts.

We have thus imperceptibly strayed somewhat from what

was a major chapter in the history of the United Nations:

the North-South dialogue, the major conferences on trade

and development. France thus proposes that the United

Nations restore development and the struggle to achieve

it to their central place in its work.

It is not a question of repeating what was done in

past decades. Our approach to development has changed.

The work pursued under the auspices of the United

Nations and its agencies has helped to call attention to the

interdependence of the economic, demographic, cultural

and social ramifications of the development question.

That is why the main theme conferences devoted to the

environment, to population, to social development and to

the status of women are now once again the instruments

to be used to mobilize for development. Given this

perspective, France will organize in Paris before the end

of this year the signing of the Convention on the struggle

against desertification, as well as the Aids Summit.

The United Nations alone is capable of ensuring that

all these efforts be pursued consistently. It has the

necessary legitimacy and authority, inasmuch as all the

main institutions concerned, including what are known as

the Bretton Woods institutions, are part and parcel of the

United Nations system. We therefore consider it

necessary to strengthen the links that unite all these

separate bodies. In particular, we should ensure that the

policies of adjustment carried out under World Bank or

International Monetary Fund auspices take due account of

the social requirements of development. France is

committed to doing so in working with its partners, and

has recently agreed to a substantial effort to help the franc

zone countries overcome the short-term effects of the

devaluation of the CFA franc.

The Economic and Social Council should be the

place for ensuring coherence and consistency within these

organizations. France therefore proposes that the next

14

annual meeting of the Council in Geneva should be an

opportunity for the ministers of Member States personally

to undertake a complete examination of the policies

followed by these various institutions with regard to

development, and especially to study specific ways by

which they might work together better.

The Secretary-General’s efforts for renewal and

clarification through the "Agenda for Development"

naturally form part of this global approach. The European

Union, for its part, has presented recommendations in its

aide-mémoire that it believes would enhance that draft.

France intends to take an active part in General Assembly

discussions on this subject.

The role of our Organization is no less critical where

humanitarian action is involved. France intervenes

regularly on the ground alongside United Nations agencies,

and we should like to pay a tribute to the outstanding work

done by the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees, the World Food Programme and UNICEF,

working under tragically difficult circumstances. We were

able to appreciate in full measure their usefulness as the

Rwandan crisis unfolded. We have had confirmation that

the United Nations alone is able to coordinate such difficult

operations. Naturally, there is need for further progress:

in shortening the Organization’s reaction time, and in better

allocating tasks among agencies. But the reform that began

three years ago with the establishment of the Department

for Humanitarian Affairs is beginning to bear fruit. We are

indeed on the right track.

Lastly, France would like to stress the underlying

principle of international law: the universality of human

rights, a principle which may not be challenged in the name

of any religious, cultural or national specificities. I am all

the more ready to say that because France is itself keen on

preserving its identity and intent on defending it. However

different people may be, they share the same rights. The

very existence of our Organization rests on this principle.

France has consistently urged the acceleration of

progress in the field of human rights, by seeking

recognition that certain principles must be applied to States’

actions. I welcome the steps taken by the High

Commissioner for Human Rights since his designation and

express the hope that the resources made available to him

will be commensurate with his mission.

The establishment of the International Tribunal for war

crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia is a significant

event. Until very recently there had been some scepticism

about this initiative. Today, thanks to the resolve of the

Tribunal’s judges and prosecutor, it is in place and

beginning to examine actual cases being submitted to it.

France supports these efforts and hopes that comparable

crimes of genocide that may have been committed in

Rwanda will also lead to the establishment of an

international legal body.

The juridical work of the United Nations extends to

other areas as well. It is designed to address matters of

international trade with a view to making it both freer and

fairer. In this regard, I have already expressed our

satisfaction at the establishment of the World Trade

Organization. The signing a few weeks ago of an act that

completes the monumental work done by the United

Nations on the law of the sea is also a historic event.

If our Organization is to be able to carry out the

many difficult tasks which I have just described, we must

constantly work to reform it and adjust the means

available to it - in the first place, by strengthening the

means available to the Secretary-General. On behalf of

France, I should like to pay a tribute here to the

Secretary-General - and this is not a mere formality. We

have the good fortune to have at the helm of our

Organization a man who, thanks to his ceaseless efforts

over the past two years, has made progress possible in all

areas: preventive diplomacy, crisis management,

development, the running of the institution. We must

therefore give him the means to continue his work.

This is true, too, of peace-keeping missions. Recent

experience has shown the need to make military forces

available to the Secretary-General on very short notice in

the implementation of Security Council resolutions. To

that end, France wishes to develop a network of stand-by

forces. On the initiative of the President of the Republic,

we have offered to make a standing unit of several

thousand men available to the United Nations. It is also

essential for the Secretary-General to be able to control

the evolution of peace-keeping missions. To that end,

France recommends systematic recourse to the designation

of a special representative.

The Secretary-General must be able to rely on the

assistance of prominent and particularly competent

persons. With regard to management, last year’s

establishment of the post of Inspector General marked an

important step forward. We expect further progress to be

made this year with the establishment of a committee on

budgetary discipline, as I proposed last year from this

very rostrum. Lastly, as our Prime Minister has

15

suggested, France proposes that someone be appointed on

a permanent basis to the Secretary-General’s Office who

would deal with the question of the non-proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction.

Our Assembly is the most universal of international

institutions. Its prestige and authority must therefore be

strengthened. To that end, France is making three

proposals.

First, sessions of the Fifth Committee must be held

more closely together in order to ensure better control over

our finances, particularly with regard to peace-keeping

operations.

Secondly, there must be more frequent missions of the

Assembly to deal with certain crisis situations, as was done

in the cases of Haiti and South Africa. The financial

reform of the United Nations, which has been discussed for

several years now, must be set in motion. Following the

work of the high-level Working Group established last year

to consider the question of enlarging the Security Council,

France proposes that a group, led by the President of the

General Assembly, be set up this year to make proposals

that could lead to the financial reform of our Organization.

Thirdly, we must work to achieve the enlargement of

the Security Council. This question has already been the

focus of in-depth discussions that have clarified the

positions at issue. For its part, France has no panacea to

offer, but it believes that the solution must answer the dual

imperative of efficacy and representativeness.

On the one hand, if the Security Council is to function

efficiently, given its tasks and the circumstances in which

it intervenes, its capacity to take important decisions

quickly must clearly be maintained. But the Council must

also allow for full public debate in reaching its decisions.

Hence, we are in favour of the Council’s holding official

meetings - without of course giving up its informal

consultations - to hear Members of the Organization and

talk with them before taking positions on the important

questions before it. We believe that this is the appropriate

response to the demand for transparency made by many

delegations.

On the other hand, the Council’s authority and thus its

efficacy also depend on its representativeness. We

therefore favour the enlargement of the Council to include

new permanent and non-permanent members. France

confirms its support for the desires of Germany and Japan

to accede to permanent membership. It also considers that

the representatives of the developing world should in no

case find themselves marginalized by any future reform.

The United Nations exists and acts only through the

will of its Member States. Though that is obvious it

bears repeating. Any failure of our Organization is in

fact the failure of those same States - that is, as my

colleague from the United Kingdom stated earlier today,

our own failure. Its efficacy depends above all on the

degree of commitment each of us brings to it.

Without the commitment of States there can be no

solution to the financial crisis of the United Nations.

Each of us is aware of the gravity of our Organization’s

financial situation. Each of us also knows that this

critical situation is not the result solely of the sum total of

expenditures. The real source of our crisis is well known:

it is the negligence of States which do not pay their

contributions or do not pay them in full.

Of course, we welcome the fact that one of the main

contributor countries has decided to pay a substantial part

of its arrears, thereby bringing temporary relief to the

Organization’s financial situation. We can understand

why some Member States are requesting that the scale of

contributions be adjusted in order better to reflect real

abilities to pay. France hopes that at the present session

the General Assembly will address the revision of this

scale in accordance with the principle of fairness and in

a spirit of consensus.

But fairness also requires swifter and more

substantial reimbursement to States that provide the troops

necessary to peace-keeping operations and are therefore

the primary victims of late payments. The situation in

which some in fact pay twice while others do not pay at

all must come to an end. France therefore asks once

again that a working group be established and mandated

to propose all the measures that can encourage tardy

States to pay their arrears.

And without the commitment of States there cannot

be any solution to international instability. France has

made considerable efforts to help resolve crises that have

threatened the international order over the past few years.

It has been the first and is now the second largest troop

contributor to the United Nations. It has well-known

experience in the three areas of preventive diplomacy,

peace-keeping and humanitarian action. Obviously,

France does not wish to lecture anyone, but its own

commitment does permit it to say that the readiness of

16

States does not meet the demands made today upon our

Organization.

Need we cite all the circumstances in which the non-

participation or temporizing of States has compromised

action mandated by the Security Council? How many

weeks did we have to wait last year for the military

arrangements provided for under Security Council

resolution 824 (1993) on safe areas in Bosnia were finally

in place? We all remember that, during the Rwandan

crisis, the decision taken by the Security Council in mid-

May to strengthen the United Nations Assistance Mission

for Rwanda had yet to be implemented two months later.

Rather than dwelling on these disappointments,

however, France wishes to pay tribute to all those States

that have shown, by their commitment and sense of

international solidarity, that the United Nations can prove

that it is effective. The African countries that chose to

share with us the risks involved in the operation in Rwanda;

the United States, which is working in Haiti to effect the

implementation of Security Council resolution 940 (1994);

the States whose soldiers stand with ours in the United

Nations Protection Force: it is thanks to them that there

remains a chance for peace in the former Yugoslavia,

delayed only by the stubbornness of the Bosnian Serb

leaders. France expects that the greatest of firmness will be

used in dealing with these most recent warmongers. But

the change in position of the other parties, and in particular

the authorities in Belgrade, makes it incumbent upon us to

continue to seek a negotiated settlement. In this spirit, we

appeal to Presidents Izetbegovic, Tudjman and Milosevic,

who have all accepted the peace plan for Bosnia, to resume

the direct dialogue necessary for a comprehensive

settlement. Otherwise, the international community must be

prepared to propose the terms of a comprehensive, just and

lasting settlement, taking into account the legitimate

interests of the various communities that made up the

former Yugoslavia and must enjoy equal rights.

Bringing to trial those responsible for war crimes is a

moral imperative to which France is committed. We must

above all make the people in the former Yugoslavia

understand that there are prospects for the future other than

endless violence and vengeance. That is France’s message.

That is the reason for the commitment of our soldiers in

Bosnia and, sadly, the sacrifice of several dozen of them.

There is nothing pre-ordained about failure to get involved,

or inertia. There is a strong will at the heart of our

Organization. Therefore France appeals to all Member

States to mark the fiftieth anniversary with a genuine

renewal of commitment.

Voices are being raised today urging our

Organization to show greater realism in defining the

missions that it has to carry out. In appealing to Member

States to mobilize, France wishes to reaffirm its

unwavering conviction that, in the face of the challenges

to the international community, realism consists not in

being less ambitious but in ensuring that we have the

means fully to achieve our ambitions. They must not be

limited to what seems possible; they must be to make

possible what is obviously necessary. It is in this spirit

that France will continue actively to play its role within

the United Nations.