Indonesia, 1995

On behalf of the Indonesian

delegation I should like to offer our congratulations to

Mr. Freitas do Amaral of Portugal on his election as

President of the fiftieth session of the General Assembly.

We are confident that under his able guidance we will

make substantive progress in our work.

To his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Amara Essy of

Côte d’Ivoire, I should like to convey our deep

appreciation for the exemplary manner in which he

presided over the Assembly at the last session.

I also wish to pay tribute to our esteemed Secretary-

General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for his dedicated

endeavours in pursuing the objectives of the United

Nations Charter and for his untiring efforts for the cause

of peace and development.

We observe the fiftieth anniversary of the United

Nations at a most crucial time in the history of

humankind. In this post-cold-war era, we have been

confronted by global changes so profound and massive

that we are just beginning to understand some of their

ramifications. These changes have generated challenges

and contradictory trends in international relations which

have cast a dark shadow on our contemporary world and

intensified our sense of uncertainty as we stand on the

threshold of a new century. On the other hand, a

deepening sense of interdependence has prompted nations

to devise more equitable and mutually beneficial patterns

of cooperation — and this has provided us with a new

source of hope. Fittingly indeed, on this fiftieth

anniversary of the United Nations, hope is the dominant

feeling in the world today just as it was hope, for a more

peaceful and tolerant world, which inspired the founding

of the United Nations in San Francisco half a century

ago.

6

With the Second World War barely over, the

international community of that time sought to establish a

world organization which would “save succeeding

generations from the scourge of war” by instituting a

system of collective security based on the repudiation of the

use of force “save in the common interest”, and on the

basic principles of sovereign equality, freedom, justice and

the rule of law. This splendid vision was not to be realized,

for soon the cold war set in between two rival military and

ideological blocs locked in a struggle for dominance. Power

politics and the quest for hegemony and spheres of

influence paralysed the collective security system. That may

be why the United Nations has not been able to prevent the

more than 150 armed conflicts which, since its founding,

have erupted in various parts of the world, taking a horrible

toll in human lives and material devastation. And that also

partly explains the persistence of inequities and imbalances

in international economic relations.

The United Nations was but a decade old when the

first generation of leaders of Asia and Africa, reacting to

the debilitating effects of the cold war and the problems

besetting the world at the time, met in Bandung to

articulate a new ethos which would reaffirm the ideals and

principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and

govern relationships between and among nations, great and

small. Thus in 1955 the leaders of Asia and Africa laid

down the “Dasa Sila of Bandung” — the “Ten Principles

of Bandung” — which embodied fundamental principles of

inter-State relations in accordance with the spirit of the

United Nations Charter.

The seeds that germinated in Bandung took firm root

six years later in Belgrade with the formal institution of the

Non-Aligned Movement. Since then, the Movement has

served as a moral and political force that provided an

alternative vision to the bloc politics of the cold war.

Pursuing that vision, the Movement contributed to the

triumph of such causes as the world-wide struggle against

colonialism; the drive against institutionalized racism,

particularly apartheid; the advocacy for nuclear

disarmament, which is finally under way; and, lately, the

launching of a global partnership for development. It is no

coincidence that these are the very same issues as those on

the agenda of the United Nations, for it is precisely within

the United Nations and through its processes and

institutions that the Non-Aligned Movement has waged its

struggles for, and pursued its advocacy of, the principles

and ideas enshrined in the United Nations Charter and

reiterated in the Dasa Sila of Bandung. There is no doubt

that the United Nations has served as the principal

instrument for the amelioration of the human condition

through the pursuit of peace and development.

In spite of the constraints to its system of collective

security, the United Nations has nevertheless undertaken

a large number of peace-keeping and peacemaking

operations. Admittedly, not all United Nations peace-

keeping efforts have been regarded as successful, but they

have consistently promoted progress in negotiations

between the parties in conflict. In the process the United

Nations has expanded the meaning of peace-keeping

beyond mere impartial interposition to include the

protection of humanitarian aid, refugees and displaced

persons as well as assistance to countries holding

elections. Even the set-backs and difficulties encountered

in peace-keeping operations have yielded useful insights

that could help secure the success of similar undertakings

in the future.

With the implementation of “An Agenda for Peace”

and its Supplement, further progress may be expected, not

only in peace-keeping but also in preventive diplomacy,

peacemaking, post-conflict peace-building and the

complementary role of regional organizations in

maintaining peace and security.

We are heartened that the Agenda for Peace has

been complemented with “An Agenda for Development”,

which would not only enhance the capability of United

Nations to do its work in the economic and social spheres

but which will also facilitate the forging of a global

partnership for development.

However, the United Nations is much more than a

forum for maintaining security, resolving conflicts and

keeping the peace. The Organization, its specialized

agencies and related institutions have been engaged in an

immense array of activities that touch every aspect of

people’s lives all over the world.

It is therefore most regrettable to note that the

severest financial crisis in the history of the United

Nations casts a dark shadow over the fiftieth anniversary.

In particular, the failure of one major Member State to

meet its obligations by withholding legally obligated

contributions is not only contrary to Article 17 of the

Charter but has also driven the Organization to the very

brink of insolvency. This aggravating situation has forced

the Secretary-General to try to resolve the crisis through

postponing reimbursements to the troop-contributing

countries. This places an unfair burden on those countries

and penalizes especially the developing countries among

7

them. If the situation were to continue without urgent and

effective measures being taken to resolve it, peace-keeping

operations would grind to a halt and all our endeavours to

maintain peace and security would be endangered. The

fiftieth anniversary presents us with an opportunity to

address this fundamental issue of the United Nations

insolvency at the highest political level, including possible

recourse to innovative global taxation schemes.

The achievements of the United Nations over the past

five decades make a compelling case for the further

strengthening of multilateral cooperation, and we believe

that the United Nations can be an even better instrument of

multilateral cooperation if we act with greater purpose and

determination in rectifying its inadequacies and

shortcomings through a comprehensive process of

restructuring, revitalization and democratization.

My delegation is therefore gratified that steps have

been taken to revitalize the role of the General Assembly,

including the reorganization of its Committee structures and

the streamlining of its agenda for greater efficiency and

efficacy.

Indonesia also believes that the membership of the

Security Council, including its permanent members, should

be increased so as to reflect the changed international

situation since 1945 and to accommodate the interests and

concerns of developing countries, which comprise the

overwhelming majority of the Organization. It is a glaring

anomaly that on the roster of permanent members of the

Council Europe is overrepresented, Asia is underrepresented

and Africa and Latin America are not represented at all. We

are also of the view that additional permanent members

should be chosen on the basis, not only of equitable

geographical representation, but also of such objective

criteria as the political, economic and demographic weight

of a country, its capability and proven track record of

contributing to the promotion of peace, security and

development, both regionally and globally, and its

commitment to assume the responsibilities inherent in

permanent membership. It may also be timely and pertinent

to review the manner in which the veto is exercised at

present with a view to mitigating its arbitrary use and to

ensuring a more democratic decision-making process.

One central challenge not yet fully met by the United

Nations in its fiftieth year is that of general disarmament,

particularly in its nuclear dimension. The 1995 Review and

Extension Conference of the Treaty on the Non-

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) adopted three

decisions, namely, to extend the Treaty indefinitely, to

strengthen its review process and to agree on certain

principles and objectives for non-proliferation and

disarmament. Yet the Conference failed to address the

inequalities inherent in the Treaty. Issues long identified

as crucial components of the non-proliferation regime

were marginalized. The indefinite extension of the NPT

removed the element of urgency from obligations under

article VI of the Treaty, which may legitimize existing

nuclear arsenals and perpetuate their further

modernization. Hence, our priority agenda in the

disarmament field should continue to be one of seeking

further deep reductions in those arsenals with a view to

their ultimate, total elimination, curbing the horizontal and

vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons, banning the

production of fissile materials for weapons purposes,

ensuring the peaceful applications of nuclear technology

on a predictable and long-term basis, initiating

negotiations towards an international convention on

security assurances to non-nuclear States, and concluding

the ongoing negotiations on a comprehensive test-ban

treaty.

It is in this context that we have deplored the

underground testing by France and China, not only

because of health and environmental considerations but

precisely because it contravenes the spirit of the 1995

Review and Extension Conference of the NPT and

undermines the ongoing efforts to conclude a

comprehensive test-ban treaty. While urging the nuclear

Powers to desist from conducting further tests, we believe

it is imperative that concerted efforts should now be

directed at achieving a treaty banning nuclear testing in

all environments and for all time, without any loopholes

or exceptions, by 1996.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of recent times is that

which has befallen the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The brutal aggression perpetrated again this independent

Member State of the United Nations and the slaughter and

“ethnic cleansing” of its people have shocked the whole

world. Denied its legitimate right to defend itself as a

result of an unjust arms embargo, Bosnia and

Herzegovina faces the prospect of the forcible dismantling

of its multicultural, multi-ethnic and multireligious society

and the erosion of its internationally recognized

sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

The major Powers, which early on could have put an

end to this tragedy, have failed the cause of justice and of

a principled solution, offering instead rationalizations for

what clearly amounts to a policy of appeasement. Only

now, after an excruciating wait, have the United Nations

8

and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) finally

taken firm action. On the ground, the tide of battle seems

to be turning, while at the same time a new peace process

is unfolding which appears to have some viability.

Indonesia welcomes the accords recently reached between

the Foreign Ministers of the Republic of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal

Republic of Yugoslavia, comprised of a set of broad

principles that are to govern a peaceful settlement of the

conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Developments have

thus entered a crucial stage, and it is of paramount

importance for the international community to ensure that

neither an unjust nor an unworkable peace be forced on

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In this regard, President Soeharto has offered

Indonesia’s good offices to facilitate a peace process based

on direct negotiations among the leaders of the States

directly involved in the conflict. These negotiations should

be conducted on the basis of certain basic principles, such

as peaceful coexistence and non-interference in internal

affairs. Any settlement should take into account existing

United Nations resolutions and existing proposals for

settlement and should entail mutual recognition by the

States that were components of the former Yugoslavia,

respect for internationally recognized boundaries and

protection of minorities. Furthermore, the process should

proceed in stages, from direct negotiations between the

leaders themselves to an appropriately structured

international conference, to be held when agreement has

been reached on the basic elements of a settlement.

In the Middle East the pursuit of peace has continued

to gather momentum. The historic Declaration of Principles

signed two years ago was bolstered by the agreement

reached last week between the Palestine Liberation

Organization (PLO) and Israel, which calls for an extension

of Palestinian self-rule in the occupied territories, phased

withdrawal of Israeli forces and free elections for a

Palestinian Council, thereby paving the way for a final

settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dimension of the Arab-

Israeli conflict. Indonesia welcomes the agreement as an

important watershed in the Middle East peace process. But

the path to a lasting peace still faces major hurdles and

challenges, including those posed by Israeli settlements in

the West Bank, the unresolved question of Palestinian

refugees 50 years after they were forced to flee their

homeland and the status of Al-Quds Al-Sharif. At the same

time, progress must also be achieved on the other tracks of

the Arab-Israeli negotiations, which is a sine qua non for a

comprehensive settlement of the Middle East question. The

ultimate guarantee for a durable and just peace is Israel’s

withdrawal from all occupied territories, including the

Syrian Golan Heights and southern Lebanon.

The global economy today is reportedly at its

strongest in many years. According to the World

Economic and Social Survey of 1995, it has attained an

average growth in output of 3 per cent per year. But the

rising tide of production has not lifted all economies.

Thus, notwithstanding the promise of global recovery,

over 2 billion people remain poverty-stricken, often under

circumstances of extreme deprivation. Up to 18 million

die annually from hunger, malnutrition and poverty-

related causes. The gap between the haves and the have-

nots continues to widen, doubling in size over the past

three decades between the richest 20 per cent and the

poorest.

Policy decisions affecting the developing countries

are increasingly being made by international agencies or

groups, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF),

the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO)

and the Group of Seven. It even seems that the United

Nations itself is being marginalized, as decision-making

on international economic and financial issues continues

to shift to the Bretton Woods institutions, where the

participation of the developing countries is less equitable.

It is no secret that some countries would like to

inaugurate a global system in which finance and

macroeconomic management become the exclusive

domain of the IMF, development strategies that of the

World Bank and international trade matters that of the

WTO.

I submit, however, that given the expanding role of

the developing countries in the world economy and the

growing interdependence between States, the participation

of developing countries should be enhanced rather than

curtailed. The solution of global economic problems

requires a global partnership for development, and that

partnership cannot be forged without sustained dialogue

and cooperation on key economic issues between the

developed and the developing countries. This is why, after

the Jakarta summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, where

economic development was restored to the top of its

agenda, the Movement sought to relaunch a constructive

dialogue between the North and the South based on

mutual interest, common benefit and equitably shared

responsibility. That kind of dialogue has been welcomed

in this Assembly, and it is our hope that other key players

in the globalization process, such as non-governmental

organizations, transnational corporations and international

financial institutions, will in time also join that dialogue.

9

Just as important is the revitalization of the institutions

which the United Nations Charter set in place 50 years ago

to lay the social and economic foundations for peace. We

must ensure, however, that in the process we will

strengthen the role of the developing countries in decision-

making and enhance the democratic character of the United

Nations.

It is in this context that I have opposed the idea of

establishing an economic security council to take the place

of the Economic and Social Council, because it is bound to

frustrate our efforts to democratize the functioning of the

United Nations. As to the attendant suggestion to wind up

the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and

Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Industrial

Development Organization (UNIDO), I believe, to the

contrary, that these two bodies are vital to the achievement

of accelerated, sustainable and equitably spread

development, especially for the developing countries. Since

its establishment 30 years ago, UNCTAD has consistently

endeavoured to redress the inequities and imbalances in the

world economy and to give a greater voice and role to the

developing countries in its management. UNIDO, too, has

proven to be of concrete benefit to the developing

countries, in particular in their efforts to accelerate their

industrial development. Both UNCTAD and UNIDO,

therefore, should be strengthened rather than be allowed to

be whittled down or eliminated.

We believe that the problems now plaguing many

developing countries could have been forestalled if they had

adequate access to international markets, to financial

resources and to appropriate technologies. And while we

expect that the results of the Uruguay Round will alleviate

the crisis by liberalizing the international trading system,

we also know that the lion’s share of the benefits will

accrue to the developed countries. This imbalance is due to

the significant loss of differential treatment in trade for the

developing countries, the limited progress achieved in

lifting restrictions on agricultural exports and the imposition

of trade conditionalities based on labour codes,

eco-labelling and so on. If the new trading regime is to

have a positive impact on the developing countries, these

problems and imbalances should be squarely addressed, and

the rights and interests of the developing countries,

particularly the least developed among them, should be

upheld.

Amid such trends as increasing globalization, the

integration of global financial markets and speculation

during periods of national adjustment to privatization, the

developing countries have become increasingly vulnerable.

Among the developing countries, those in Africa are

particularly disadvantaged because their external-debt

problems have virtually excluded them from investment

flows — they must rely on official development

assistance (ODA), which continues to decline. At the

same time, negative financial flows continue to hamper

their development efforts. In 1994 alone the continent’s

indebtedness was double that of other developing

countries. It is therefore incumbent upon the international

community to give its priority attention to the critical

situation in Africa.

The World Summit for Social Development,

convened earlier this year in Copenhagen, underscored the

determination of the international community to raise

global standards of living and to address the problems of

poverty, unemployment and social integration. Its

Declaration and Programme of Action offer a pragmatic

and feasible course to alleviate mass human suffering and

to elevate the human condition. Now we must translate

rhetoric into action, and realize the true potential for

global prosperity.

An integral part of that process is the

implementation of the Declaration and Platform for

Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on

Women, recently concluded in Beijing. For only through

the empowerment and advancement of women by such

means as access to economic resources, to education and

to the decision-making processes in all fields and at all

levels can the social and economic welfare of humankind

progress. It is essential, therefore, that we create an

environment conducive to women’s full participation in

the development process, as both its agents and its

beneficiaries, if we are to move forward in our efforts to

achieve sustained economic growth, sustainable

development and social justice.

The observance of the fiftieth anniversary of the

United Nations is particularly significant to us in

Indonesia, for it takes place while we celebrate the fiftieth

anniversary of the proclamation of our independence. To

us, this is not a mere coincidence in time but a

convergence of ideals and values. Neither is it a

coincidence that the Charter of the United Nations and the

Constitution of Indonesia embrace the same principles and

objectives, such as independence, social justice, equality

and abiding peace. For the United Nations and Indonesia

emerged from the crucible of the Second World War and

the struggle for independence yearning and hoping for the

universal peace that can only be derived from a sharing

of the fruits of freedom and justice by all humankind.

10

Since then, the United Nations and all of us, the

peoples who are its constituents, have gone through another

crucible, that of the cold war and the massive global

changes that attended its wake. And, again, we have

emerged with a yearning and a hope that the peace

envisaged in the United Nations Charter 50 years ago will

be attained in our time. The difference is that this time we

have 50 years of experience to illuminate our endeavours

and to sharpen our perspective of the future. On this

occasion, as we rededicate ourselves to the vision of the

United Nations Charter, let us resolve to use our collective

experience in our continuing efforts to revitalize and

strengthen the Organization that is the vehicle of our hope.