Madagascar, 1992

The General

Assembly's choice of Mr. Ganev to lead the work of its forty-seventh session

is a worthy tribute to his outstanding qualities and to the role his country,

Bulgaria, has always played in international relations. I convey the

congratulations of the Republic of Madagascar to him, and on behalf of my

delegation assure him of our cooperation.

We are grateful to his predecessor, Mr. Samir Shihabi, for having

accorded the strengthening of the General Assembly's authority the highest

priority among his concerns although this did not keep him from discharging

his other responsibilities with grace, competence and skill, even in the most

sensitive of circumstances.

I turn now to our Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a member

of our National Academy. He is certainly aware of the great regard in which

he is held in Madagascar, and we know that his experience, his sense of duty

and his humanism are all guarantees of the success of our Organization. In

this time of profound change, requiring the involvement of all, we again

express our support for and confidence in him.

Finally, we address our best wishes to, and welcome, the 13 new Members:

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. We are pleased to be able to count upon their

invaluable cooperation and to offer them our own in return.

When I spoke at last year's session, I mentioned the need for a new

charter in referring to the prospects of what was being offered us as the "new

world order". I will not repeat my conclusion, especially since the

declarations adopted by the recent Summit Conference of the non-aligned

countries have reinforced the sense that my suggestion, as daring as it may

have been, only reflects the aspirations of a fairly significant sector of

humanity. I realize nevertheless, in the light of the events of these past

12 months, that it might not seem timely not because it in any way disturbs

the conservatives, but because we are unfortunately compelled to yield to the

vagaries of the international situation.

And we ask ourselves: At what point can we truly speak of the new world

order? Shall we call it the new order, the new world order, or the new

international order? Are we sure of winning consensus around a concept that

can only be the fruit of joint efforts? Indeed, before we talk of order, let

us try to look within ourselves and around us!

Rare are the developments that cause us satisfaction. To be sure, work

on the chemical weapons convention has finally been concluded; the operation

in Cambodia seems to be supported by the parties; the international peace

conference on the Middle East has shown signs of rather positive developments,

in spite of some understandable hesitancy; in South Africa, the recent

agreement between De Klerk and Mandela should pick up the broken thread of

negotiations in the Convention for a Democratic South Africa; the political

situation in Angola, Mozambique, and El Salvador is brightening; democracy is

regaining stature and acceptability everywhere; and the Earth Summit in Rio

unfolded in the best possible conditions.

However, shadows persist. There are instability, human tragedy, and

political chaos in many countries; the eruption of a nation and the threat of

an entire people's disappearance in Somalia; violence and massacres in the

Balkans; floods of refugees in Africa, especially, in Asia, and even in

Europe; deadlock in Cyprus; foot-dragging in Western Sahara; human rights

trampled by hatred, intolerance, and xenophobia; monetary and financial crisis

in the industrialized countries; and mounting poverty in third world countries.

This record, though incomplete, is not very encouraging. In any event,

it hardly lends itself to prognostications on what the new world order is to

be. We will indeed be able to discourse validly on the subject once we have

mastered disorder and political, economic, and social insecurity on the

national, regional, and international levels. This finding, whose particular

bitterness pains us, should not inhibit our ability to reflect and to judge.

Nor can anyone say that we are entitled to hide behind the sense of malaise

indignation, even in order to refuse to seek joint solutions, however

imperfect, to the problems that we have often created for ourselves.

As a Member of the United Nations, and above and beyond any

considerations of national interest or ideological affinity inasmuch as

ideologies still exist - it is up to us to affirm and constantly reaffirm the

central role of our Organization in establishing peace and security,

prerequisites for progress and social justice. That is the essence of the

1945 Charter. These will remain the goals of the charter that will need to

replace it. That is why the Non-Aligned Movement again took up this theme

from a fresh but not unprecedented perspective, so as to apply it to the

democratization of international relations and the development of solidarity

and equality, not forgetting the promotion of legality.

One criticism of the 1945 Charter is that it does not take sufficiently

into account the desirable balance between the main bodies of the

Organization the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and

Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice,

and the Secretariat. To each body its own responsibilities and attributes!

Each historical era has its own limitations and its own imperatives. Since

people continue to call for a comprehensive approach to problems in order to

achieve integrated solutions, it is important to take a new, pragmatic look

ever respectful of the spirit of the Charter at certain provisions of the

Charter.

Let us take the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the

Security Council: Exercised on behalf of the entire Organization, they arose

in the situation that obtained immediately upon the Second World War. Now,

the alliance has not survived the victory over totalitarianism. The cold war,

which in some sense crystallized and distorted the use of the veto, is now

part of history. The same applies to the concept of "enemy". Meanwhile,

newly independent States and new Member States have called for participation

on a more responsible basis and a more equitable allocation of what they see

as privileges in fact, the implementation of democratic rules within the

Organization. It is therefore not astonishing to hear speak at one point of

expanding the Security Council, at another of eliminating the veto right, or

at another still of extending or modifying the exercise of that right.

One fact remains: the right of veto, as envisioned in the 1945 Charter,

is challenged by everyone throughout the world except those who have it. Let

us apply the rules of the democratic game, and concede at least one point:

the 1945 Charter can and must be revised. It will still be necessary for the

five permanent members to agree as a whole to renounce their implicit veto

right when it comes time for ratifying whatever changes the sovereign Assembly

may adopt. That is the only way for us to overcome the impasse.

It is necessary at the same time to define more rigorously the concept of

international security not to abridge the authority of the Security Council

but to strengthen that of other bodies. Political or strategic circumstances

and considerations have given that concept political, economic, social,

humanitarian, ecological and even legal ramifications. It is thus possible,

invoking jurisprudence, to recommend measures against a State or a regime in

unexpected spheres, arbitrarily chosen on the basis of defence considerations

or the promotion of special national or regional interests.

In that context, we want to state our appreciation for the

Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace". Despite the rigid framework

within which that study was carried out, its vision is stimulating, its

analyses relevant and its recommendations acceptable. We hope it will help

shed new light on the concept of responsibility free from hegemony, so that

this notion will attract more open, unambiguous support.

I felt it necessary to stress the democratization of international

relations because the strengthening of the Organization depends on it. Only

an organization whose central role is set out in the documents, practice and

acceptance of its members can guarantee the establishment and maintenance of

relations among nations based on trust, equity and equal participation.

We lay stress on the same principles when we address the problems of

development, for we are convinced that their solution depends in large part on

the status of international peace and security. So long as the international

political situation is under a burden, the search for a solution to the

development crisis will be in vain. The Organization indeed, the entire

United Nations system is working along those lines, and we are glad that

debate both at the eighth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade

and Development (UNCTAD) and at the United Nations Conference on Environment

and Development was marked by strengthened international cooperation for

development. This theme reappeared at the high-level discussions in the

Economic and Social Council. This awareness is reflected also in an

acknowledgement that stress must be placed on the role of the United Nations

as the only forum in which we can deal with these problems in an integrated

manner.

We must draw up universally accepted principles and rules; ensure

coordination among the various development forums; harmonize the modalities

for action by financial, monetary and trading institutions; and above all be

aware of the political dimension of the decisions we shall have to make at all

levels. That is the role of the Economic and Social Council; we must

streamline and consolidate its functions in analysis and orientation to make

it more effective system-wide.

On the institutional level, we note a willingness to create controls

and the beginnings of that process although unequal means do not always

favour consensus among the bodies concerned.

Then there is poverty. It is unbearable for its victims; it is

unacceptable in a world that espouses solidarity. It has always been the lot

of Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, where economically

fragile, poorly integrated, dislocated, marginalized societies barely survive,

side by side with pockets of prosperity.

I want to make special reference to my own continent of Africa, where

poverty and its attendant disease, natural disasters and social conflicts have

devastating, degrading effects. How can we ignore the fact that by the end of

the century, although we expect 400 million fewer impoverished people in the

world as a whole, there will be 100 million more in Africa?

We are sometimes criticized for self-pity and for not making the efforts

necessary to eliminate poverty in our countries. We are not immune to such

criticism, but is it not true also that poverty will be eradicated only if the

pace of economic growth is accelerated and if together we can solve the

problems that are the underlying causes of underdevelopment? Give us the

tools for action, quickly and under tolerable terms.

In that context, I want to stress the urgency of reconsidering the

question of our external debt; initiatives taken thus far have had no

significant impact, despite the best intentions and despite a number of

generous gestures made. We believe that initiatives must be reviewed and

expanded to ensure the resumption of development and growth. To be complete,

these initiatives must include additional resources, whether these come from

official aid, the "peace dividend" or transfers in the form of investment.

In that context, we hope an international conference on development

financing will take place and will respond to our difficulties in implementing

the various programmes and plans of action that have been adopted for the

development of the countries of the South.

Environmental protection and the promotion of sustainable development are

the great challenges of the 1990s and beyond. We must therefore ensure the

swift implementation of Agenda 21. Though an ambitious programme, it is

commensurate with our respective responsibilities.

Madagascar welcomes the convening in 1993 of the World Conference on

Human Rights, in 1994 of the International Conference on Population and

Development, and in 1995 of the World Summit for Social Development.

The holding of those conferences reassures us in our determination to

establish a society based upon social justice and true democracy, as reflected

in the Constitution recently adopted by the people of Madagascar. We wish to

express our gratitude to the Secretary-General and to the institutions and the

friendly countries which have supported us in this process.

New prospects for action are opening before us in the political, economic

and social spheres. We have discussed them, reflected on them, and compared

and contrasted our ideas regarding them. We have not always managed to avoid

recrimination and confrontation, but over four decades which will soon be

five we have constantly sought the best ways and means of promoting and

perfecting cooperation between our peoples and between our States. With this

cooperation we have everything to gain; without it we have everything to lose.

This certainty could have been a valid guide for us in our common quest

for more peace, more justice and more progress in a word, for bringing about

a more humane world. We could have succeeded long ago had the course of

events been more in our favour and had we agreed together to turn our visions

into reality. General instability led us to doubt ourselves and also one

another. However, the fact that we are gathered here bears witness to our

readiness and determination to turn towards the United Nations in order to

draw renewed certainty from it.

This is not a risk-free undertaking, since it reveals our weaknesses and

shortcomings. It is, however, worth making the effort in order to enable us

to adjust our commitment to the challenges that continually assail us. Let us

hope that it will lead to a renewal which is beneficial to the Organization

and which in the final analysis will help us to keep the promises we have made

to our peoples.