France, 1995

Mr. President, I should like to say first how

pleased France is to see you personally presiding over the

work of the General Assembly. Beyond your personal

merits, which I acknowledge with pleasure, your election

underscores the important contribution to the activities of

the Organization of Portugal, a member of the European

Union with which France feels particularly close.

The United Nations is 50 years old. As the Heads of

State and Government of the European Union solemnly

emphasized in Cannes last June, the collective work since

the Second World War has been considerable. The

European Council on that occasion paid tribute to the

major contribution of the United Nations to this collective

work and gave some examples: decolonization, the

maintenance of international peace and security,

disarmament, development, humanitarian aid and, of

course, the protection of human rights.

But the successes of the Organization do not belong

solely to history. This year has shown the vitality of the

United Nations. In Copenhagen, the social dimension of

development, the struggle against exclusion and for

productive employment, which are both major challenges

for all our societies, are now within the domain of our

Organization. In Beijing, the principle of strict equality

between men and women and the right of women to

decide freely about their lives in all matters have finally

been endorsed once and for all as universal values. In

New York, the United Nations has begun preparatory

work towards the establishment of a world criminal court.

This project signals decisive progress for international

humanitarian law.

In Vienna, at this very moment, a conference on the

scourge of inhumane weapons is being held. France is

working in particular to eradicate the scourge of the

spread of anti-personnel mines. In 1993, it decided upon

a unilateral moratorium on the export of these mines.

Now the time has come to go one step farther.

Accordingly, I wish to confirm that France has decided to

adopt a unilateral moratorium on the production of all

categories of anti-personnel mines. It is therefore

12

imposing upon itself a ban on the manufacture of such

weapons. France also pledges from this point on to destroy

gradually its stock of anti-personnel mines. I call on all

Member States to join with us and do the same thing.

This year has also been marked by the success of the

New York Review and Extension Conference of the States

parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons. This success was a major step towards

disarmament. France proposes that this coming year should

be a time for further progress in this domain: disarmament

should be our common goal and it should encompass all

aspects of disarmament. France calls upon the States that

have not yet adhered to this Treaty to do so without further

delay. The struggle against the proliferation of nuclear

weapons must be universal. I suggest that all the States

which have already signed this Treaty multiply concerted

efforts to persuade the States which have not yet signed to

join them.

In addition, it is important to follow through on the

new objectives decided by the review Conference of the

Non-Proliferation Treaty in May. Among these, the most

important is the conclusion, no later than 1996, of the

comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty now being negotiated

in Geneva. The President of the French Republic,

Mr. Jacques Chirac, most solemnly reaffirmed on 13 June

1995 France’s determination to achieve this goal and to

ensure that the ban is total. France is pleased that other

nuclear Powers have in turn made the same commitment.

It calls on all nuclear Powers to ensure, together with all

the Member States of the Organization, that this pledge is

duly confirmed in the text of the future treaty and that the

negotiation of the treaty is completed before the autumn of

1996.

I take this opportunity to recall the reasons that led

France to complete the programme of nuclear tests that was

temporarily suspended in 1992. The final series of tests

now under way has no other purpose than to enable us to

sign the treaty banning nuclear tests definitively. There

were some who imagined and others who wished to make

believe that we might reconsider such a decision. This will

not happen. Once again I repeat, this is a final test series,

limited to what is strictly necessary and held under

conditions that have been proved to be harmless. It will

enable us to adhere as early as possible to the future treaty

banning tests definitively.

The disarmament effort must of course be directed

towards reducing existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Substantial progress has been achieved over the past few

years with the destruction of a significant number of

warheads by the two main Powers. I would recall that

France for its part, although it has never contributed to

nuclear overarmament, reduced the nuclear warheads it

had deployed by 15 per cent between 1991 and 1995.

Disarmament, however, does not apply solely to

nuclear weapons. With regard to chemical weapons, I call

upon all the Member States to ratify, or for those which

have not yet done so to adhere to, the 1992 Convention

banning chemical weapons. I regret that France is the

only permanent member of the Security Council that has

ratified this Convention. I hope that the other permanent

members will do so in the coming months.

We must continue the effort to reduce conventional

forces in Europe. France took its full part in the

agreement on conventional force reductions in Europe. It

proposes that the conference which will be held in May

1996 to examine the implementation of this agreement

should focus on compliance by all States with a treaty

that is the keystone of security in Europe. This conference

should also be the occasion for further progress.

There remains the highly sensitive issue of the

Convention banning biological weapons. A serious

verification system has to be set up. I hope that the

working group responsible for this matter in Geneva

quickly establishes such a system.

My country cannot accept the argument put forward

by some that the Organization has failed in its task. We

reject the accusations of passivity and helplessness that

are sometimes made against it. Nevertheless, we cannot

hide the fact that the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary

will not be as joyful and as optimistic as we would have

liked. The image of the Organization in public opinion is

confused, even negative at times. We should try together

and with a clear head to identify the reasons for such a

situation. I am convinced they have nothing to do with

any disaffection with the Organization. Never have the

aspirations of our peoples, especially the youth of the

world, so matched the objectives of the Charter: peace

and disarmament, environmental protection, solidarity

with the very poor, aid to those who suffer, the promotion

of democracy, of liberty and basic human rights, and the

collective struggle against the major scourges of the end

of the century, namely drugs, terrorism and AIDS. In the

last few years, we have witnessed the emergence of a

body of common values on a world scale. These are the

values which the United Nations, like France, upholds;

they are the values of peace.

13

In Europe we built with our neighbours a Community

and then a European Union, and in doing so we turned a

page of a history that had so often led us to confrontation

with each other. Since 1945 Europe has known a period of

unparalleled peace. The European Union is on the verge of

being enlarged again. France warmly welcomes the

forthcoming membership of its neighbours in Central,

Eastern and Mediterranean Europe, and will do everything

to make it a great success. In this way, the unity of our

continent is gradually being organized.

The extension of the boundaries of the European

Union does not lead it to close in on itself. Quite the

contrary, Europe is opening up to nearby neighbours from

the South, as the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in

Barcelona will demonstrate. I should like to emphasize the

fundamental importance of that Conference. Europe also

wants to develop its relations with Asia; in this regard, the

first Europe-Asia Summit, scheduled for March 1996, will

be a clear illustration. Lastly, Europe is deepening its

partnership with Russia as well as enhancing its close ties

with the United States and other partners.

I would like to insist on the fact that the European

Union, under the impetus of the French presidency, has

confirmed its privileged relationship with the African,

Caribbean and Pacific countries in the context of the Lomé

Convention and its special place in North-South relations as

the leading donor of development assistance.

In all those areas, Europe has set the example.

These values of peace are also at work in the Middle

East. France welcomes the important results that have

already been achieved under the peace process. I am

thinking of the Declaration of Principles of 13 September

1993 and the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty of 26 October

1994. But, above all, I am pleased to see that the principles

agreed upon in Oslo have at last borne fruit with the long-

awaited initialling of the interim agreement this Sunday.

With this, a major turning-point, manifested by the

declaration of principles, has been given concrete form. The

Israeli-Palestinian peace process is now irreversible. I also

hope that the talks between Israel and Syria will soon

resume and that negotiations will start between Israel and

Lebanon so that a just and lasting peace, in accordance with

Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and

425 (1978), be guaranteed throughout the region.

As the French President, Mr. Jacques Chirac, stated at

the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary at Geneva, the

world needs the United Nations. And it knows it, as proved

by the increasing number of tasks Member States have

entrusted to the Organization.

Therefore, today’s doubts have another origin. I see

two major causes. First, the United Nations is not shown

sufficient respect, probably because of a lack of political

will and resources. Secondly, the Organization has yet to

demonstrate its ability to reform itself.

Let me speak of respect first. One will never be able

lay sufficient stress on the devastating effect of the sight

of the Blue Berets of the United Nations Protection Force

(UNPROFOR) held hostage last spring, in chains and

humiliated in their dignity as men and soldiers. In

Somalia, in Rwanda prior to Operation Turquoise, in the

former Yugoslavia since the outbreak of the conflict, the

soldiers of peace had already found themselves in

situations that the United Nations accepted but that no

Member State would ever have tolerated. It is not

surprising that the image of the Organization has thereby

suffered.

I want to make myself clear. It is not a matter of

questioning the enormous work that has been

accomplished by the United Nations peace-keeping forces

since the end of the cold war: Namibia, Cambodia,

Mozambique, El Salvador and Haiti owe to those forces

progress that would have been impossible without the

United Nations. In Somalia, the United Nations saved

thousands of lives. Its intervention in the countries of the

former Yugoslavia made it possible to prevent the war

from spreading to Macedonia, to contain and dampen the

conflict within central Bosnia and Croatia, and, above all,

to ensure the survival of the populations in certain safe

areas, in Sarajevo in particular, for three years. However,

we have been helpless witnesses to unacceptable

suffering, to shameful operations of so-called “ethnic

cleansing” and to crimes against humanity, which the

international community was unable to prevent and before

which it remained passive.

These tragic events have shown the dangers of

mixing humanitarian and military missions and the risks

incurred when the mission conferred by the United

Nations is lacking in clarity. The Organization needs to

make itself respected when it intervenes in a conflict. Last

spring, France proposed to its partners that the time to

react had come at last. It suggested a change in attitude

and policy, with the formation of a powerfully armed

Rapid Reaction Force. We have since begun, in liaison

with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),

decisive action to lift the siege of Sarajevo. This has

14

enabled the United Nations to recover the respect of all

parties.

This strengthening of the United Nations capacities for

action has no other objective than to place force at the

service of law. Only a political solution can truly settle the

conflicts brought about by the dissolution of the former

Yugoslavia.

That is why France, together with its partners in the

European Union and within the Contact Group, has taken

a clear position in favour of a settlement based on two

main principles, namely, respect for international law and

the support of the settlement by all the populations

concerned.

Respect for international law entails a rejection of any

solution which, imposed by force, would mean breaking

with the founding principles of our Organization. Bosnia

and Herzegovina is a recognized State and a Member of the

United Nations. Its territorial integrity and sovereignty must

be preserved. There is nothing to discuss or negotiate on

those two matters.

Those who have chosen to break the law and who

have committed the crimes of which we are all aware will

be held responsible individually. The International Criminal

Tribunal, whose creation was proposed by France in 1992,

must fully exert its jurisdiction.

It is also important that all the citizens of Bosnia and

Herzegovina should be able to assert their specific character

through representative entities. Let each entity have direct

management of its own affairs and even be able to maintain

special relations with States whose populations share the

same affinities. All this is legitimate so long as the

management of common interests and the exercise of the

functions of sovereignty are not brought into question.

The agreement on the principles of a settlement

proposed to the protagonists in this conflict by the Contact

Group at Geneva on 8 September of this year and accepted

by their representatives, meets these two criteria. This is

why France has welcomed it, approves it and will support

it. The agreement and subsequent actions represent an

encouraging step, but they are only a first step. The extent

of what remains to be done to end the tragedy of Bosnia

clearly shows the major role that the United Nations will

have to take. In that mission, it can rely on France’s

unwavering support. It must also rely on the support of the

international community. Peace will be the work of all.

The decline in the respect shown the Organization is

evident in another domain that also affects its survival,

namely, its financing. It is not normal for the Secretary-

General of the world’s largest Organization, faced with

the threat of imminent bankruptcy, to have fewer avenues

of recourse in dealing with his debtors than the smallest

of our businesses. It is not acceptable for Member

States — and I am not thinking here only of those that

are experiencing real economic difficulties — to show

such scant respect for the Organization by ignoring the

legal obligations they have freely accepted.

France would like to see the United Nations stronger

and more respected. For this to occur, however, it is also

essential that the Organization be reformed and adapted.

The Secretary-General has spared no effort to open

the way to reform. Under his aegis, significant progress

has been made in the management of the Organization.

All the debates in these past few years were undertaken

at his initiative and have been based on his proposals in

the Agenda for Peace and the Agenda for Development.

France is awaiting with the greatest interest the Agenda

for Democracy, which will complete this triptych in a

field in which the United Nations is called on to take the

leading role. The Organization has need, more than ever,

of its Secretary-General in order to adapt to the demands

of the twenty-first century.

However, it also requires the political will of its

Member States, and this is not sufficiently in evidence. At

the opening of this fiftieth session, my wish is a simple

one. Let us concentrate on the projects that have already

been begun so that they can be completed soon, within

the coming year. France will contribute to this, and I

should like in this respect to submit a few proposals.

One of our main objectives will be to reach an

agreement on enlarging the Security Council. Enlargement

will be successful only if the Council continues in a

lasting way to be representative of the community of

nations through a reasonable increase in the number of its

members.

I should like to reaffirm this today: the Security

Council will have to welcome Germany and Japan as

permanent members, as well as some major States of the

developing world. It would also be desirable, naturally,

for the Council simultaneously to be opened to some new

non-permanent members.

15

The negotiation on the enlargement of the Security

Council now can and should be concluded quickly. Let us

wait no longer. It is equally imperative for the discussion

on United Nations financing to produce results in the next

few months.

But we must be honest with ourselves. This

negotiation depends in part on the response to the United

States’ request for a reduction in its assessed contribution

to the budget for peace-keeping operations. I shall not try

to disguise France’s genuine doubts as to the legitimacy of

this request.

None the less, for the higher interests of the

Organization, my country is ready to examine this question

without any a priori conclusions. It does, however, set

certain imperative conditions. The first condition is that any

new scale must respect fully the real capacity of Member

States to pay. On this point I should like once again to pay

tribute to your country, Mr. President. Portugal decided this

year, of its own accord, to increase its contribution to the

budget for peace-keeping operations. The second condition

is that the agreement must make it possible for the

Organization to start off again on sound bases. All existing

arrears will therefore have to be paid up. The third

condition is that automatic sanctions should be applied to

those who do not pay appropriately in order to prevent a

recurrence of the current crisis.

This is the modest price of enabling the United

Nations to devote itself less nervously to its two principal

missions: peace-keeping and development.

Peace-keeping is the domain of the Security Council,

the only body empowered to decide on the use of force and

to determine the principles and mandate of operations

carried out in the interest of international peace and

security.

We have to learn the lessons of the experiences of

recent years. Aside from traditional peace-keeping, the

United Nations may find itself obliged, in accordance with

the mandate entrusted to it by the Security Council, to

resort to force, within the limitations of its means, in order

to preserve whatever can be preserved. United Nations

military action is often the sole recourse available to the

international community.

It is therefore essential to increase the efficiency of the

United Nations in the service of peace. Among the most

pressing matters, I wish to underline the need to set up

capacities for rapid intervention, in the framework of the

vital process begun two years ago concerning stand-by

forces. I wish also to mention the need to improve the

command of operations and the interest in a still greater

use of preventive diplomacy.

I would like to say a few words about a situation

that is of grave concern to France and that calls

specifically for urgent action in preventive diplomacy on

a large scale. I am referring to the situation in the Great

Lakes region of Africa.

Since the assassination of Burundi’s President,

Mr. Ndadaye, and the unprecedented tragedy that struck

Rwanda, this entire region has been deeply destabilized.

More than 2 million Rwandans and Burundis are living

outside their country in terrible conditions, with the

difficulties that all this entails for the host countries. The

absence of lasting political solutions, the climate of

insecurity and fear that is kept alive by all the extremists,

the suspicion reigning on all sides, the risk of new

tragedies — all this compels us to address together and in

depth the fundamental problems in this area, taking into

account their extreme complexity and the trauma caused

by the genocide that has plunged Rwanda into mourning.

France remains convinced that only a comprehensive

regional approach that is political in character will make

it possible to do this. The principle of a conference on

peace, stability and security in the Great Lakes region is

now accepted, and we welcome the recent appointment of

a Special Representative by the Secretary-General. But

time is of the essence.

This conference must be carefully prepared, with the

active participation of the States most directly involved

and interested in its success, and it must lead to the

establishment of a stability pact for the African Great

Lakes region. There are three elements that I believe to

be essential in this respect: first, the adoption of

principles for the return of the refugees and for national

reconciliation, along with a commitment by States not to

tolerate any activity hostile to their neighbours on their

territory; secondly, the conclusion of bilateral or

multilateral agreements among the States concerned to

enshrine these principles and commitments and to give

them substance; and, finally, the organization of a follow-

up mechanism under the aegis of the Security Council.

France holds the conviction that development

assistance is the second, or perhaps the first, raison d’être

of the United Nations. Here, too, the balance sheet invites

reflection. How can we not have questions about the

16

feebleness of results, the persistence of extreme poverty, or

at times even famine, these crises that erase all prospects of

development and bring indescribable suffering to

populations? How can we not have questions about the

reduced contributions of the world’s richest countries?

These failures have gone onto the record. Now we

must act, reform and take the best advantage of the

experience we have acquired. The institutions of the United

Nations and their network of representatives in the field are

strong points. The development agencies have to refocus

their activity specifically on their objectives. They have to

set real priorities aimed at addressing real needs — in other

words, first and foremost the needs of the least developed

countries.

But it would be shocking if, as I sometimes predict

will happen, reform were boosted for the sole purpose of

reducing still further the contribution of the richest States

in the struggle against human poverty.

France, together with its partners in the European

Union, hopes to bring about, through An Agenda for

Development a mobilization for development on new

foundations. The situation is too disturbing to set the

interests of the States of the North and South in opposition

to each other. We are all bound by a higher duty: the global

struggle against poverty.

If, before this session comes to a close, we are able to

enlarge the Security Council, to place United Nations

financing on solid bases, to give the Organization the

means to intervene rapidly and effectively to maintain peace

and, finally, to modernize the modalities and institutions for

development assistance, we will truly have celebrated the

fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, above and

beyond all the speech-making, in a fitting manner: by our

actions.

Allow me finally to mention a project that is

particularly dear to me: to re-establish, on the occasion of

this anniversary, the universality of our Organization, which

is reflected in the diversity of cultures and languages

manifested here.

Linguistic pluralism is essential. It reflects the right of

each Member State to understand the others, but also its

duty to make itself understood. A draft resolution on this

subject will be submitted to the Assembly; it will deal with

the use of languages in the Assembly’s deliberations and in

the Secretariat, and I hope it will enshrine the need to retain

sufficient resources to ensure the provisions of translation

and interpretation services. I am convinced that we will

reach a consensus in this regard.

Our Organization has deliberately taken its actions

for the long term. Recent events may obscure

achievements that are nevertheless solid, the results of

collective, patient, courageous work. But the gains are

there. It is up to each of us to make them known and

consolidate them so that the United Nations may continue

to fulfil the indispensable role entrusted to it 50 years

ago.