Malta, 1994

I should like to join others in

congratulating the President on his election to preside over

the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly. The

wealth of his political and professional experience and his

personal qualities will undoubtedly benefit the work of the

Assembly in the coming months.

He takes over his new responsibilities from His

Excellency Mr. Insanally who, as President during the

forty-eighth session, continued to give the presidency that

forward-looking spirit which is so important as the United

Nations system and, at its very centre, the General

Assembly increasingly become the effective focal point of

international life.

Five years after the end of the Cold War, the

international community continues to witness painful

situations of political, economic and social strife.

Daily the media bombard us with images of misery:

victims of wars fleeing combat zones, abandoning all they

had worked for and accumulated in a life-time; refugees

crossing deserts or oceans in superhuman efforts to

distance themselves from situations where human dignity

is trampled upon, where the essence of human rights has

long been lost; the poor and the needy nurturing hopes of

escaping from communities where development is absent

or denied.

The list of anguish is endless. Most of us are

disturbed and angered at the apparent impotence of the

international community to attack the root causes of such

misery.

We tend to link many of these situations to the end

of the Cold War and its aftermath, aware that the

transition in international power relations has had an

effect which goes far beyond its immediate political

impact. It has influenced in different ways the economic

and social dynamic not only of those States undergoing

the process of transition, but even others - a spill-over

effect which is as difficult to contain as it is difficult to

identify and map out.

We have entered a historical phase marked and

chequered by regional conflicts - wars which sow death

and destruction and erase social and economic

achievements in a matter of weeks if not days.

There is the temptation to develop an immunity to

the tragic consequences of these ills by giving up on our

collective responsibility to alleviate suffering. Every time

the international community gives in to this temptation it

is rudely awakened by degenerating situations which we

cannot but find shocking.

Antagonisms with roots which go back in time have

exploded into situations of conflict and civil strife,

exposing a heritage of ethnic, religious and tribal

animosities. Massacres on an unprecedented scale have

devastated our collective conscience.

The transition has created a vacuum. In attempting

to fill this vacuum, the new and frail forces of democratic

political leadership often have to encounter antagonistic

economic, political and social forces interested in carving

a niche for themselves through the perpetuation of

10

instability. Illegal drug and arms traffickers, money

launderers and unscrupulous economic operators stand to

profit from an unregulated fiscal, political and social

environment. They often join forces in efforts to

undermine the consolidation of democracy and the rule of

law. The international community has long realized that

such ills cannot be tackled in isolation. Cooperation has

been strengthened in areas where borders fail to stop the

spread of criminality.

The ills of the present age also require enhanced

bilateral and regional cooperation. Regions may learn

lessons from each other as different illicit trade routes

ranging from drugs to plutonium, appear to spread their

tentacles to encompass the globe. The heart of the matter

lies, however, in rehabilitating those social environments

which the illicit trade invades, thrives upon and exploits.

Safeguarding the dignity of every human being,

through the full respect for the right to life, liberty and

security of person must remain the basis of our collective

action.

We all declare ourselves committed to the principles

enshrined 46 years ago in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights. This commitment, however, has oft fallen

victim to that pragmatic approach which demands looking

the other way - a philosophy that justifies living with the

lesser evil, supposedly to avoid the greater evil. The

fallacy of this approach has been seen in many and varied

instances, ranging from corruption within the body politic,

to totalitarianism at the national level, to trans-boundary

crime and terrorism at the international level.

For five years we have been speaking of the creation

of a new international order. The words and setting were

praiseworthy, as was the commitment to do good. In our

euphoria, we assumed that our desire for a new world

community where law, order and development should

prevail was universally shared.

Crude realities have proved that in making this

assumption we failed to note that our desire for good could

be matched, indeed challenged, by the evil intentions of

others. It was thought that this challenge could come only

from existing regimes which we rightfully tried to treat as

outcasts - little realizing that the roots of the issue were

more widespread and lay in the lack of balance and

harmonious development of economic and socio-political

systems.

The conclusion of the Uruguay Round this year and

the setting up of the World Trade Organization could

provide us with a channel where trade practices become

more transparent and fair. Trade is the driving force

behind economic growth and social stability. Lack of

viable economic activity erodes the basis of democratic

societies, rendering them fragile and subject to instability.

One cannot but praise the efforts of the peoples and

Governments of many States in striving to build stable

economic infrastructures. Their enterprise cannot be

achieved without the constant support of developed States

with long-established free-market economies.

A new approach requires that we gird ourselves

properly to face the challenges ahead. On the national

level, political and socio-economic structures must ensure

dignity for one and all.

On 21 September, Malta celebrated the thirtieth

anniversary of its independence. During these three

decades, many were the challenges faced and the lessons

learnt. Democracy based on the dignity of each citizen is

a task that requires an ever-renewing commitment by all

social forces to the right to freedom of opinion.

Pluralism is an essential catalyst in the democratic

process and requires that we honour its full meaning in

the different areas where it manifests itself. However

much this impetus is strengthened when fired by

Governments, it is handicapped each time an authoritarian

Government assumes that it can rule by diktat. During

the past seven years my Government has committed itself

to strengthening pluralism in such vital areas as

broadcasting, education and trade. Pluralism is a vote of

confidence in the people, and a democratically elected

Government cannot but reciprocate the trust bestowed by

the electorate.

The consolidation of democracy was not the only

challenge we had to face. During these 30 years we

radically transformed an economy entirely dependent on

the presence of foreign military bases into one benefiting

from thriving financial, industrial and tourism sectors.

This transition has given Malta the economic buoyancy

required of it as a prospective member of the European

Union. We note with satisfaction the decision, taken last

June at the Corfu Summit, that Malta will be included in

the next phase of the enlargement of the European Union.

This state of economic well-being has enabled the

Government to consolidate a social policy inspired by the

concept of solidarity. Over three decades we have

11

introduced schemes ensuring equal access for men and

women by providing appropriate formal educational and

social structures.

In enacting this policy, the Government has not

ignored its responsibility to ensure a dignified life for all

through programmes that range from free medical aid for

all citizens to care of the elderly and integration of the

handicapped.

Today, Malta can rightfully claim to be a nation at

peace with itself and with others. Though conscious of our

limitations, we have never let size inhibit our mature

involvement in the international arena. On the occasion of

the recent signing of the Agreement on the implementation

of part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea, many representatives acknowledged Malta’s role in

launching the concept of common heritage - a concept that

today is the guiding principle in a number of conventions.

Malta stands committed to the creation of a global society

based on the principles of dignity and solidarity.

Throughout the centuries, Malta has had its existence

marked by the contradiction between its size and its

strategic importance. This has necessitated an

understanding of the importance of regional stability

through cooperation. Since independence, we have

cultivated an awareness of the importance of stability in the

Mediterranean. The progress registered in the Middle East

peace process following the signing of the Declaration of

Principles and the Washington Accords of 13 September

1993 makes it easier to understand the importance of the

interdependence of European security and Mediterranean

security.

Malta has been the first in international forums - and

has sometimes been alone - to advocate the need for a

Mediterranean dialogue, and it has been consistent in

advancing proposals to this end. Over the years since the

Helsinki Summit Declaration we have promoted the link

between security in Europe and security in the

Mediterranean.

Today, the Mediterranean dimension is high on the

international agenda. From both sides of this sea of destiny

the need for a Mediterranean forum has been underlined -

not for the sake of creating another international body but

as an aspect of the logic of existence in the light of the

many problems in the region. These problems range from

unemployment to overpopulation, terrorism and ethnic strife

- all in a narrow highway that affects stability in the region

and beyond, thus threatening the future of millions.

We cannot, therefore, but identify ourselves with

Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, who, in his address to this

Assembly at its 8th plenary meeting, stated that France

would like to see Europe organizing a forum for

cooperation involving all the Mediterranean States, and

would be making this one of the main goals of the

forthcoming French presidency of the European Union.

We also welcome the statement made at the 6th plenary

meeting by the President of the Council of Ministers of

the European Union - Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel -

that Europe attaches great importance to security in the

Mediterranean.

Principled cooperation reflects a fundamental and

essential Maltese social reality. It was through the

extension of this matured concept to the broader European

and international level that, within the Conference on

Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), Malta

launched the initiative for the Conference to declare itself

a regional arrangement for the maintenance of peace and

security in the terms of Chapter VIII of the United

Nations Charter - a declaration adopted by CSCE Heads

of State and Government at the Helsinki II Summit.

In calling for a new approach at the regional level,

we cannot but renew our support for, and our

commitment to, the CSCE process. The CSCE was the

first body to give tangible form to the connection between

the political, economic and human dimensions. The

CSCE need not be copied in its detail by other regions,

but it provides a model of confidence-building to which

other regions can aspire.

The need for a new approach has long been felt at

the United Nations. Initiatives taken by Malta when it

occupied the presidency of the General Assembly at its

forty-fifth session, four years ago, are slowly bearing

fruit. However, it is only legitimate to ask whether the

results are proportionate to the efforts made. My

Government welcomes as a step in the right direction the

recently adopted resolution on revitalization of the

General Assembly. Important as it is, this step cannot but

lead to others meant to enhance the role of this forum.

We have to maintain the central role of the General

Assembly in the framework of the United Nations. This

is the only forum where all members are permanent

members. We believe that the General Assembly has to

develop and define the fact-finding mechanism that

pertains to it. We also have to ensure what former

Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar referred to as

"a balanced constitutional relationship". The maintenance

12

of this relationship with and between the principal organs

of the Organization, including the General Assembly, the

Security Council and the Secretariat, is important not as an

issue of the internal working of the Organization but

because "it bears on the guardianship of peace exercised by

the United Nations ".

In his report "An Agenda for Peace", Secretary-

General Boutros Boutros-Ghali underlines the relevance of

the General Assembly as a universal forum by calling for

recognition of its capacity to consider and recommend

appropriate action in the maintenance of international peace

and security. He says:

"To that end it is essential to promote its utilization by

all Member States so as to bring greater influence to

bear in pre-empting or containing situations which are

likely to threaten peace and security." (A/47/277,

para. 36)

In this respect, the reforms related to the restructuring

of the Security Council, which we hope will be negotiated

by next year, have a bearing because of the qualitative

change they would generate. My Government is studying

the proposals already submitted, including the Italian

proposal presented yesterday by Foreign Minister Martino.

Next year we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of

the United Nations system. The international community

is becoming more aware of the vast extent of common

concerns which bond our fate as a global community. A

number of international conventions today make specific

reference to the common heritage of mankind.

The universal acceptance of this principle is to our

collective credit. It is proof of the sense of responsibility

and equity that inspires Member States in their obligations

towards present and future generations. Only an underlying

solidarity can ensure the survival of the planet. This sense

of inter-generation solidarity truly dignifies humanity.

Malta has underlined the need for a unit to coordinate

and monitor areas related to the common heritage. A

convergence of all efforts becomes instrumental to the

efficiency with which such initiatives, born of conventions,

may work and bear fruit.

A scenario marked by institutional fragmentation can

be avoided only by establishing institutional oversight in the

interest of the areas we hold in trust for future generations.

Rather than reinventing the wheel, we are proposing a

transition and evolution in the role of Trusteeship Council,

for we are convinced that the Trusteeship Council could

be such a point of convergence.

We have taken note of the part of the report of the

Secretary-General on the work of the Organization which

deals with the Trusteeship Council and, in particular, the

recommendation that the General Assembly proceed with

steps to eliminate that organ in accordance with Article

108 of the Charter. We agree with the Secretary- General

that with the end of the Trusteeship Agreement on Palau

the Council, as conceived, has concluded its task.

The concept of trust - a concept of English Common

Law which is fundamental in its fiduciary nature - is one

that reflects the mission of the League of Nations and

later the United Nations in so far as certain Territories

were concerned. We have to apply the concept of trust

to new realities. We believe that the United Nations

holds in trust for humanity its common heritage and its

common concerns: the environment; the resources of the

sea and of the seabed; the climate; the rights of future

generations; and the safeguarding of the rights of peoples

in situations of complete breakdown of the organs of the

State. We believe that we hold these in trust for

humanity, and an enhanced and redefined Trusteeship

Council can be the right organ for this purpose.

The challenges of the present times demand that we

look at the United Nations system with innovative eyes.

We cannot aspire to a new world order and yet persist in

viewing the institutional mechanisms of the United

Nations through the same cold-war lenses, which are ill

focused for our times and now shattered by the course of

history. We need to view the United Nations as a

complex adaptive system, a system which, without

renouncing its original ideals and basic principles,

responds adequately and promptly to contemporary needs,

a proactive United Nations rather than a reactive one, a

United Nations which moulds a new mentality apart from

ironing creases and mending tears in the fabric of

international relations.

The challenge today is not a physical dividing wall.

This generation can one day look back with pride at what

it has achieved. The recent ceremonies marking the

departure of foreign troops stationed in Germany is a

reminder of how significantly different political realities

are today from the days when the Berlin Wall cut across

a city, a nation and a continent with the same callousness

with which it cut across the soul and spirit of Europe.

13

Equally breathtaking was the transition from a South

Africa built on the bastion of apartheid to a democratic

South Africa which cherishes the dignity of all of its

citizens.

The walls of division are also being dismantled in the

Middle East, where political determination and goodwill

can and should ensure the full enjoyment of sovereignty

and political rights for all peoples living in the region.

However, there are many other situations at which we

shall some day look back in anger. The challenge to our

political will today is the tragedy of the children in Bosnia

and Herzegovina, the rotting, butchered bodies floating in

the rivers of Rwanda, the millions of refugees with their

lives wasted in never-ending waiting, the other millions of

depressed and oppressed living an existence without

dignity.

1995 is a year of challenge. It is the year of the

World Summit for Social Development and of the Fourth

World Conference on Women, the next two links in the

triad begun with the recent International Conference on

Population and Development at Cairo. Three Conferences

which, with Habitat II, require a global approach focused

on development rather than on the promotion of hidden

agendas which are irrelevant in the resolution of essential

issues - essential issues which represent a billion people

living in abject poverty, half of whom go to bed hungry

every day.

There is a poverty curtain which continues to create a

great divide and which becomes more impenetrable when

we wilfully shut our eyes to the concept of solidarity.

Empowerment becomes a mere cliché if it fails to ensure a

life in dignity for this ocean of humanity denied of its most

basic right to life, liberty and security of person.

In issuing declarations we do well to underline our

commitment to eradicating the root causes that generate so

much misery, anguish and pain. We do even better when

we make firm commitments on assistance to States which

require our solidarity, States in need that require us to

match our words with deeds.

Solidarity means reaching out rather than holding out.

Solidarity is the building block of greater security to ensure

the livelihood and dignity of millions. Solidarity is a key

factor in the promotion of development in the lives and

minds of men, and hence in the complex relations that

guide the international community.

Our legacy to future generations would be a poor

one if development and solidarity were not matched by

compliance with international standards of human rights.

The importance of the rule of law and democracy requires

that the international community safeguard human rights.

Denial of liberty is the refusal of that oxygen that enables

a developed community to live in harmony with itself and

others. The challenge of the twenty-first century is not

liberty in the abstract: it is the responsibility of the

United Nations to be an instrument in forging principles

into concrete action.

A second-generation United Nations facing the

challenge of solidarity must serve as a guidepost to

humanity in its long walk towards peace in freedom.