Jordan, 1993

I should like at the

outset to extend to you, Mr. President, my sincere

congratulations on your well-deserved election. I should like

to wish you and the other members of the General

Committee success in the discharge of your important duties.

I had a chance to congratulate the President of the Assembly

at its last session when I saw him in Amman, and I should

now like to reiterate my gratitude for his competent

presidency.

The cold war may be over, but its death-knell

reverberates around the globe. The comforting ideological

certainties of super-Power confrontation are long gone.

What have we to replace them? The new world order, with

its promise of peace through collective security, has come

upon a baptism of fire. And still it would appear that no

common frame of reference, no new consensus, no global

ethic, has emerged.

As we enter the new millennium, we see the human

spirit under siege as never before. Across the world, the

voices of millions cry out in desperation for relief, for

guidance. If we, the peoples of the United Nations, are to

be true to our humanity, we must reappraise this situation

that is of our own making. We must learn its lessons, no

matter how hard, and we must apply them. It is our task

today, and in the days to come, to fashion principles and

practices for a truly new world order. In all fields of human

endeavour, we need a new ethic for a new era.

The balance of world power politics has given way.

Ethnic nationalism has re-emerged, a phenomenon in which

the unifying bond of common citizenship is replaced by

racial or religious exclusivity. As a consequence, we face a

series of apparently endless wars of attrition, fought to

secure the domination of one ethnic nationalism over

another. This trend must be reversed if our world is to be

made safe from the spreading contagion of conflict.

Many over the years have thought it impossible, but the

Middle East is bucking this alarming trend. The signing on

13 September of the Palestinian-Israeli declaration of

principles represents a significant step towards the

achievement of a negotiated settlement in our troubled

region.

On the Jordanian-Israeli track, a common agenda,

which has been carefully worked out over the last year and

a half, has now been adopted. We trust that this will signify

the commencement of serious and substantive negotiations

on the various elements of that agenda, with the aim of

achieving just and mutually satisfactory solutions.

These developments are a triumph not only for the

politics of consensus, but also for the international morality

which the United Nations advocates and the legality it

upholds. Over the years the Assembly has passed resolution

after resolution calling for a just, comprehensive and lasting

settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestine

question that lies at its core. Finally, the main actors are

playing the leading part in shaping their own destinies.

My country has always sought to bring this prolonged

and bitter conflict to an end, and in our search for solutions

we have constantly aimed to reconcile peace and justice.

Jordan has advocated a negotiated settlement based on

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

longer than any other party. Under the new arrangements,

all parties to the conflict are committed to the

implementation of those resolutions, affirming a cardinal

principle of international law: the inadmissibility of the

acquisition of territory by force.

There is an equally important principle to bear in mind,

however. Peace cannot be piecemeal. It must be

comprehensive if it is to be viable. As foreseen in the

Madrid framework for the peace talks, some issues cannot

be addressed by any two parties to the exclusion of others.

The questions of regional security, water and above all the

refugees cannot be resolved without direct reference to the

neighbouring States. The status of Jerusalem has to be

determined in a similar way. The legitimate rights which the

three great monotheistic faiths share in the Holy City must

be guaranteed and claims of political and administrative

sovereignty accommodated to the satisfaction of all.

In view of Jordan’s long association with the

Palestinian question, the Palestine Liberation Organization

(PLO)-Israeli agreement will have major implications for our

legitimate interests. At a time when new entities are being

formed, an orderly transfer of power and authority is vital.

Only this can safeguard the rights of existing States and

those of individuals. There are questions to address about

State property, archives, debts, treaties, nationality, salaries,

pensions - the list is long, but not exhaustive. Jordan will

seek modalities for their resolution with the relevant parties

through our agenda.

The refugee question is of paramount importance. It

should not, and must not, be forgotten that the individuals

affected have under international law a right of return and

compensation, and their host countries are likewise entitled

to compensation. Jordan has shouldered an enormous human

load as a result of the conflict. Three waves of involuntary

migrants - the refugees of 1948, the evacuees of 1967 and

the returnees of 1991 - have sought shelter and succor in

Jordan. Our treatment of these and other displaced persons

has been exemplary. We have provided them with education

and health services, with jobs and welfare. Citizens of

Jordan, whether of Palestinian or Jordanian origin, enjoy

civil and human rights equally and participate as equals in

our democratization process. Jordan seeks an equitable,

sustainable international approach to the treatment of our

demographic burden, for it would be unconscionable to

penalize host countries for their humanitarian policies.

Another crucial issue is water. Our agenda strikes a

delicate balance between the need for optimal utilization of

scarce resources, on the one hand, and the equally

imperative need to define the rights and duties of riparian

States, on the other. We also look forward to definitive

delineation of our borders with Israel, thereby giving

concrete expression to the right of every nation to live in

secure and internationally recognized boundaries.

When the euphoria has subsided, these serious and

complex questions will remain. The PLO-Israel accord,

historic as it is, represents a first step towards Palestinian

final status, which in turn will allow the Palestinians to take

part in comprehensive regional security and cooperation

arrangements. For the Middle East cannot be reduced to a

single issue. It more closely resembles a tapestry woven of

numerous intertwining threads.

One of these wider regional issues - the suffering of the

Iraqi people - demands urgently to be addressed. A

succession of independent reports has brought to light the

special impact of continued sanctions upon the most

vulnerable segments of Iraqi society - in particular, the

children. The sanctions regime that daily takes its toll on

the people of Iraq also has adverse consequences for

neighbouring States, including Jordan and Turkey. Issues

such as this must be resolved if the Middle East is to seize

its chance for lasting peace. A cooperative security system

will help to protect the security of the States and peoples of

the region. We can only avert the kind of destabilizing

conflict that followed the end of the cold war in Eurasia by

Forty-eighth session - 5 October l993 3

making arrangements to ensure our common future,

underpinned by the full support of the international

community.

Despite these outstanding questions, I have no doubt

that the extraordinary achievements of the autumn of 1993

will be seen in years to come as the start of a fresh course

in the settlement of regional conflicts. The politics of

dialogue and reconciliation have been our regional and

domestic priorities, for they are essential to the democratic

process. We seek to extend the principles of consensus and

collective security to the Middle East to create a new

regional order, an order which recognizes the right of each

individual to lead a life free from fear, want and despair, an

order which will provide justice to all peoples and security

to all States, an order in which the United Nations and its

agencies can play a positive role not only in humanitarian

intervention or the protection of human rights, but in active

peace-keeping and peacemaking.

Jordan applauds Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali for

his valiant efforts to overhaul the United Nations structure

and personnel, injecting a fresh sense of purpose

commensurate with the new challenges. It is in the interests

of all Members of this body to see international law

respected and upheld. We must all assist the Secretary-

General in determining the criteria for United Nations

intervention, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia,

Angola, Cambodia or anywhere else. The terms of reference

embodied in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter must

be clearly defined, with checks and balances approved to

avoid the erosion of the independence and territorial

sovereignty of Member States. There is also an urgent need

for well-trained international peace-keeping forces, which

could be established under a reconstituted Military Staff

Committee. The modus operandi for all United Nations

action, irrespective of the issue at hand, must be the

supremacy of the rule of law and the uniformity of its

application. Double standards should not and must not be

permitted, lest abuse of the law become the accepted norm.

A wider issue concerning this Organization is that of

Security Council reform. Jordan adds its voice to the host

of countries that have called for a reassessment of the

structure of the Security Council. Clearly, conditions in the

world have changed dramatically since the formation of the

Council, and we believe that these should be reflected in its

composition. Jordan also lends its support to the Secretary-

General’s proposals for post-conflict peace-building outlined

in his "An Agenda for Peace".

For in every part of the world peace will remain

illusory unless it touches the daily lives of ordinary people.

Peace will not take root except in an environment conducive

to regional cooperation and mutual security and committed

to the welfare of individual human beings. The development

of economic infrastructure and provisions for investment in

public services are as crucial as the questions of territorial

sovereignty, national identity and security. It is for this

reason that Jordan welcomes the recently convened

conference to support Middle East peace as both timely and

pragmatic. The peace dividend in my region, as elsewhere,

must put an end to the politics of deprivation, fear and

despair, the breeding ground for political extremism and

rejection.

The disparities and distortions created by half a century

of conflict in the Middle East have given rise to such

phenomena. That is undeniable. However, there is

considerable alarm in the Muslim world at suggestions that

Islam may replace communism as a global threat. These

suggestions are informed by a skewed perception of Islam as

a monolithic creed of violence, intolerance and oppression.

Islam is not the new enemy. Extremism does exist

within the Muslim world, much as it exists in the Christian

world, the Jewish world, the Hindu world and the secular

world. But to employ reductive stereotypes which demonize

one fifth of the world’s population must ultimately be self-

defeating. It can only result in the breed of senseless

violence that has brought untold suffering and loss of life to

Bosnia. Rather than seeking an enemy at the gates, let us

each in our own communities look inwards and address the

disparities and the despair that are the true causes of

extremism and conflict. Let us join together to do battle

with the real enemy.

That enemy is a new world of "each for himself". That

is what we must combat, with all the resources at our

disposal. For the politics and economics of exclusivity are

the bane of both pragmatism and idealism.

Is the triple pillar of democracy, human rights and the

free market the ceiling of our ambition? Democracy and

free market economics are exceptionally successful systems

with noble objectives. But they are not ends in themselves.

The end for which we all strive is greater peace and greater

justice for individual human beings across the world. How

is this to be achieved?

One of our strongest defences against a new world of

"each for himself" would be a new global business ethic,

applying not only among the developed nations, but also

4 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

between those nations and the developing countries. Such

an ethic might prescribe a relationship of partnership which

would in turn encourage greater self-reliance. Such an ethic

would be wholly reconcilable with human rights, with

pluralism, with care for the environment and with basic

religious values. I would like to suggest that the key to a

new ethic in all of these areas is our mutual interdependence.

Whatever the context, injustice is perceived and conflict

results when the gap between "self" and "other" seems larger

than the common ground. This fundamental split between

"me" and "you", between "us" and "them", is at the root of

all oppositions, all polarities, all conflicts. Recognition of

our mutual interdependence requires us to acknowledge the

uniqueness of each individual and each culture - even into

the broader environment - and to learn to live with the

differences as with the commonalities. It requires that we

strive for unity, but never seek to eradicate or compromise

diversity. It requires a new thinking based on tolerance and

compassion - a humane approach and respect for the voices

of others. It requires, in short, that we be true to the ideals

that fired the founders of this Organization when they wrote

the words: "We the peoples of the United Nations".

Herein lies the nexus between peacemaking, human

rights, pluralism, cultural heritage and business ethics. Here

lies the key to a new world of "all for each other", not "each

for himself".

The Middle East is showing the way. Its conflict, once

held to be the most intractable on Earth, is now on the path

to reconciliation and healing. As we enter a new

millennium, a new era, let the world take heart from our

example. Let us emerge together from the past and together

let us build our brave new world.