Nigeria, 1997

There is an overwhelming air

of expectancy across the world as we gather at this fifty-

second session of the General Assembly. It is hoped that

the events of this session over the next few weeks will

present a new vision for our Organization. The success of

this session will depend upon Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, the

Foreign Minister of Ukraine and current President of this

Assembly. His reputation for excellence and hard work

assures us all that under his presidency, the affairs of this

session will be well ordered.

May I therefore take this opportunity, on behalf of

my Head of State, General Sani Abacha, and the

Government and the people of Nigeria, to extend to him

our congratulations on his election. Let me also avail

myself of this opportunity to extend to his predecessor,

Ambassador Razali of Malaysia, our praises and high

esteem for the purposeful and dynamic leadership he gave

to the General Assembly during the past year.

My delegation notes with satisfaction the excellent

manner in which our Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan,

has settled down to his onerous tasks and conducted the

affairs of our Organization since he took office. He has

demonstrated through his reform proposals his capacity to

lead the United Nations into the twenty-first century. We

will continue to extend to him our fullest cooperation and

support.

As we gather here to contemplate the present state

of our world, it is tempting to be optimistic that the

United Nations will provide a solution to the problems of

nations. The truth however, is that all around the world

lies evidence of the Organization’s unfinished tasks, and

even of some of its failures to meet mankind’s hopes and

aspirations. Nonetheless, the fact that Member States

continue to participate in the annual sessions of the

General Assembly signifies that the search for peace and

the pursuit of development are indeed ongoing processes.

There still subsists an abiding faith in the United Nations

and the willingness on the part of all of us to continue to

strive for a better and more peaceful world.

That is why many nations have come here from time

to time seeking understanding for their individual travails,

believing passionately that here they would find

accommodation and support. Many of them have returned

home disappointed, confounded by the realities of today’s

world, as they come to terms with the awesome power

wielded by the strong against the weak. We must remain

mindful that international relations represent a complex

mix of national circumstances and the demands and

dictates of a changing external environment. International

relations must be based on a perceived goal of the

common good, on mutual respect for sovereignty and on

accommodation and consideration for national

circumstances and sensitivities. The United Nations must

therefore continue to serve as the bulwark against the

imposition of the will of the strong on that of the weak.

23

No nation ever addresses this body without a point of

view peculiarly its own. We all come here with our

histories, our cultures and our traditions, which give

meaning and substance to the values we seek to impart to

this Organization. In the case of my country, Nigeria, we

have the added burden of manifest destiny. While we did

not choose our destiny, we welcome its concomitant

obligations and opportunities. For it is destiny, not national

ambition, that motivates us in the discharge of our

responsibilities.

In this regard, we see in the predicament of each

troubled African State a mirror image of ourselves and a

call to duty to render assistance in the best tradition of

African brotherhood. Our exertions on behalf of regional

and subregional peace and security arise from the

circumstances of our history as the largest black nation on

earth and the fortunate circumstances of our bountiful

endowment. It is our destiny that we are home to one of

every four Africans and one of every five blacks on earth.

How could we be indifferent to the plight of the black race?

It is our unshakeable destiny to champion the promotion

and defence of the rights of all black people in Africa and

in the diaspora. So, let no one imagine that we have only

just embraced our peacekeeping role, because, as is well

known, we nurse no expansionist or hegemonistic interests.

We simply cannot be indifferent to the plight of our

brothers in other African States when their lives are

imperilled.

Since our admission to the United Nations on 7

October 1960, we have given a firm indication of our

country’s determination to chart an independent course in

world affairs and also to resolutely defend the interests of

Africa. When, for example, an atomic device was detonated

in the Sahara in 1960, Nigeria did not hesitate to express its

disapproval by breaking diplomatic relations with the

country concerned. Furthermore, we are proud to have been

part of the effort that brought about the formation of the

Organization of African Unity in 1963. We have since

spared no effort to ensure the survival of that continental

Organization. We were also in the vanguard of the struggle

for the total liberation of Africa from colonial domination

and of the campaign to eradicate apartheid in South Africa.

We regarded the apartheid system as an affront to the

dignity of the black race.

Similarly, our contributions to United Nations

peacekeeping operations span nearly three and a half

decades. Starting with the Congo in 1960, we have

committed in excess of a quarter of a million troops to

United Nations peacekeeping efforts. They have been

variously deployed to preserve peace and security in our

own region and elsewhere around the globe including in

Bosnia, Cambodia and Lebanon.

At the inception of our Organization over half a

century ago, its founding fathers captured, in the preamble

to the Charter, a vision and an expectation of saving

succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It was

hoped that a global order would emerge in which

humanity would live at peace with itself and nations

would be able to cooperate in furtherance of peace and

security. In spite of the end of the cold war, which for

many years was perceived as the main obstacle to the

realization of United Nations goals, our world is still

largely unsafe, insecure and unstable.

The threat of nuclear war still truly exists. This

makes it imperative that the total elimination of nuclear

weapons remains a priority item on the United Nations

agenda. Over and above the threat posed by nuclear

weapons, there has been a proliferation of inter-State and

intra-State conflicts with attendant negative consequences

for global peace and security. In Central Europe, Asia and

in our continent, Africa, these conflicts have devastated

societies, resulting in millions of refugees and displaced

persons. Africa is the area worst affected by these

conflicts.

The United Nations has primary responsibility for

the maintenance of international peace and security.

However, it also recognizes the crucial role which

regional and subregional organizations may play in the

realization of these objectives. It was in the light of this

recognition that the 16 countries of the West African

subregion launched, in 1990, the Economic Community

of West African States (ECOWAS) Monitoring Group

(ECOMOG) to address the conflict in Liberia, which at

the time was rightly perceived as a threat not only to the

corporate existence of a Member State but, indeed, to

peace and security in the entire subregion.

As a result of the firm resolve of the leaders of

ECOWAS and the determination of ECOMOG, coupled

with the enhanced material and logistic support received

from friendly countries within and outside the subregion,

the disarmament of the warring factions was successfully

accomplished as scheduled, on 31 January 1997. An

environment of peace and security was then established

throughout Liberia. It then became possible for free and

fair legislative and presidential elections to be held as

scheduled, on 19 July 1997. On 2 August this year, His

Excellency Mr. Charles Ghankay Taylor was installed as

24

President of Liberia. That event brought to an end a sad

chapter in the history of Liberia. As Nigeria is currently

chairing ECOWAS, we take this opportunity to convey to

the international community our profound appreciation for

its support and assistance in bringing the Liberian conflict

to a successful end.

It is ironic that as peace came to Liberia events in

neighbouring Sierra Leone took a turn for the worse,

following the violent overthrow of the legitimate

Government of President Tejan Kabbah by a section of that

country’s military on 25 May 1997. That action was

characterized by massive looting and wanton destruction of

lives and property. Vital national assets, including the

Central Bank, were looted and burnt down. Virtually all

embassies and residences were either looted or vandalized

by the ravaging group of coup plotters now in Freetown.

All diplomatic missions have since evacuated Sierra Leone.

These developments have been roundly condemned by

the OAU, the United Nations and the international

community. It is encouraging that no foreign Government

or organization has to date given recognition or support to

the regime in Freetown. We urge that this position be

maintained.

Meanwhile, ECOWAS has spared no effort in seeking

a peaceful resolution of the problem created in Sierra

Leone. At Conakry, in June 1997, ECOWAS objectives

were defined to include: first, the early reinstatement of the

legitimate Government of President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah;

secondly, the return of peace and security; and, thirdly, the

resolution of the issues of refugees and displaced persons.

Accordingly, ECOWAS adopted a combination of three

strategies, namely dialogue and negotiations, sanctions and

embargo, and the possible use of force. A mechanism to

monitor and implement the ECOWAS response to the

situation in Sierra Leone was established, comprising four

countries: Nigeria, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.

During the last ECOWAS summit, held recently at Abuja,

the committee was expanded to five with the addition of

Liberia, and was raised to the status of Heads of State.

At that same summit, additional measures were

imposed on the illegal regime in order to strengthen the

negotiation process towards the peaceful resolution of the

crisis in Sierra Leone. ECOMOG was mandated to oversee

the implementation of these measures. In pursuing this goal

of the peaceful resolution of the Sierra Leone crisis, we

seek the support of the international community.

Africa has of late witnessed a series of inter-State

conflicts which have in some cases led either to the

disintegration of some countries or to the total collapse of

central government authority. Consequently, many well-

meaning members of the international community have

tried to propose solutions for prevention and resolution of

conflicts in Africa. Regrettably, these various initiatives

have not only been made outside the framework of the

United Nations, but, more seriously, have tended to ignore

the existing framework and mechanisms within the

African continent. Yet it is obvious that the existing

mechanisms at both the subregional and the continental

levels have demonstrated a proven capacity to resolve

African problems. ECOWAS, the Southern African

Development Community and the Intergovernmental

Authority on Development have all established a

reputation as viable instruments for conflict resolution. Of

course, most of the regional and subregional bodies

require material and logistical support from the United

Nations as well as from individual members of the

international community.

Nigeria believes that no initiative, however well

intentioned, can succeed in resolving conflicts if it is not

discussed and adopted within the framework of the OAU

Central Organ’s Mechanism for Conflict Prevention,

Management and Resolution. Accordingly, we recommend

that all current initiatives should be first channelled

through the existing organs of the OAU.

It is our view that national sovereignty and the

fundamental rights of the individual are not necessarily

mutually exclusive, provided a proper balance is struck.

Indeed, they can be mutually reinforcing. The problem

arises when, either deliberately or inadvertently, the

prerogative of sovereignty is made subject to the absolute

rights of the individual. This is a disservice both to the

cause of freedom and to the true purpose of democracy.

What is required in the interest both of the State and of

the enhancement of human rights is a proper recognition

that the right of the individual only begins at the point

where the sovereign right of the State terminates. We

must resist the attempt in some quarters to use human

rights as a ploy to engage in activities designed to

undermine the sovereignty of some Member States in the

United Nations family.

Two years ago, the present Administration in my

country announced a programme of return to civil rule.

Since then, commendable progress has been made in the

implementation of that programme. We are encouraged by

the successful outcome of the elections held so far and of

25

the processes which we have undertaken to ensure a

successful transition. The rest of the programme is firmly

on course. We remain firmly confident that all the

processes entailed in the transition programme will be

completed on schedule, by 1 October 1998.

We have always given due recognition and

appreciation to all friendly countries in the international

system which have shown genuine concern for and

understanding of the complexities of the Nigerian situation.

After all, in 1960 we as a country willingly embraced the

Westminster model of Government put in place by the

departing colonial Power. That system took little or no

account of our traditional institutions, or indeed of our

customs and cultures. Indeed, that system collapsed after

six years. In 1979, my country, being more adventurous,

looked far across the Atlantic Ocean and adopted the

presidential system of government. However, the cost of

running the system placed a huge burden on our country’s

economy. Not surprisingly, that system too collapsed after

five years.

Today, no one can blame us as a country for searching

for a system of government best suited for Nigeria, a

system which takes into account the realities of our nation.

You may call it by whatever name, but the peace, stability,

development and good governance of our people remains

uppermost in our minds.

At 37, Nigeria is by all standards a relatively young

nation. Even those countries that have been nations for

centuries and have inherited relatively stable societies are

still grappling with the complexities of nationhood and

experimenting with new formulas to cope with the

exigencies of state. They were not present when their

forefathers, who also fought bitter civil wars, struggled to

hand them their present inheritance. They should therefore

show greater understanding for those of us engaged at this

time in the arduous task of forging new and stable societies

from the ruins of colonialism.

If Nigeria appears concerned and indeed preoccupied

with the vital issues of peace and stability at home, in West

Africa and in Africa as a whole, it is because we are

convinced that the urgent demands of socio-economic

development cannot be effectively tackled without peace

and stability. Nigeria believes that peace and stability in

Africa will facilitate the channelling of our limited

resources into the critical areas of political, social and

economic development. Consequently, since the end of our

civil war in 1970, we have embarked on a deliberate and

substantial reduction of the Nigerian armed forces from a

strength of 500,000 in all ranks to the barely 100,000 that

it is today. This has resulted in a corresponding reduction

in military expenditure.

Security considerations have sometimes compelled

countries to allocate a disproportionate share of their

national budgets to military expenditure. This has had the

effect of reducing resources available for development.

The end of the cold war had raised hopes that substantial

resources would be available in the form of a peace

dividend for development. Unfortunately, the proliferation

of regional conflicts and civil wars has led even the

United Nations into allocating enormous resources for

peacekeeping and conflict resolution, thus weakening its

capacity to fulfil its Charter obligations regarding social

and economic development.

Since its establishment 52 years ago, the United

Nations has served as an instrument for implementing a

global agenda of a diverse, complex and pressing nature.

As has been evident from the debates that have taken

place in the General Assembly, no one today can deny the

need for and the urgency of reform.

In this regard, the Secretary-General has now made

a number of proposals, in addition to the ongoing efforts

of the General Assembly on the subject of reform. My

delegation will actively participate in the consideration of

these proposals. In doing so, it is important to stress that

the outcome should encompass and take on board the

views and interests of all Member States.

The reforms of the United Nations, as proposed for

the Secretariat, the General Assembly and the specialized

agencies, would be incomplete without a corresponding

reform of the Security Council. A reform of the Council

would entail a restructuring and expansion of its

membership in both categories to take account of, among

other things, the increased membership of our

Organization and the need to reflect the interests of all the

constituent regions.

Happily, there is now broad agreement on the need

for the expansion of the membership of the Security

Council in both categories. With almost a third of the

membership of the United Nations, Africa should have

adequate representation in an expanded Security Council.

At the thirty-third summit of the Organization of African

Unity (OAU) held in Harare, Zimbabwe, last June,

leaders of Africa reaffirmed the need for the region to

have two permanent seats with full veto powers. Nigeria

considers this demand legitimate and well deserved.

26

We stand here today as guardians of the heritage of

our cherished Organization, even as we gaze at the future

horizon and the dawning of the new millennium. The vision

we harbour about the future of the United Nations is

inevitably conditioned by the objective realities of the

present and the vigour with which we shall pursue the

hopes and challenges of the new millennium.

It is within our means and our grasp to make the next

50 years of the United Nations different, more exciting and

generally more beneficial to the world at large. We can

plead no alibi or extenuating circumstances should we fail

to do so. For, unlike in San Francisco, when nearly two

thirds of the present membership of the United Nations did

not participate in the creation of the bold new world, this

time around, we, all 185 nations at the United Nations, are

the world, and we are present at the reordering of the new

international world order, as envisaged by the reform

proposals of the United Nations and its organs. We should

take the opportunity to establish a revamped United

Nations of shared values and interests and to promote a

greater equality of States.

Students of history will bear testimony to the fact

that over the centuries, centres of power and influence

have shifted constantly from one part of the world to

another. The rise and fall of great empires has been a

constant phenomenon in human history. A gale wind of

change is now blowing across the globe. My country,

Nigeria, identifies with that change, which inevitably will

result in new centres of power and influence. It is not to

be imagined that any one continent will forever remain at

the periphery of the emerging new world order.

The millennium bell tolls for the nations of the

world as we await the dawning of the new age. We must

not shirk our responsibility for the regeneration of the

United Nations. We are the world. Let us, from this

historic Hall, reaffirm our faith in humankind. Let our

dream come true for a new and vibrant inner vision that

will light our paths into the next century. Now is the

time; as the late Mother Teresa so gently reminded us,

“Tomorrow has not yet come, yesterday is

already gone, and we have only today — let us

begin”.