Seychelles, 1992

We

should first like to congratulate Mr. Ganev on his election to the presidency

of the General Assembly at this session.

Barely a year ago, the representatives of the United Nations, meeting in

this same Hall, ventured to believe that a new era of peace, cooperation and

understanding was being established. We glimpsed on the horizon a new order

in which each would be recognized, in which all nations, large and small,

would have equal responsibilities and obligations in mutual respect.

We believed that. We really believed that, because the mood was one of

optimism. After all, the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait had marked

the triumph of legitimacy. Then, bloc confrontation being over, it was time

for dialogue, since ideological antagonism had been overcome.

Today, the world is again experiencing upheavals and disruption. We are

seeing States imploding. Peoples are plagued by hunger, destitution and

poverty. We are powerless witnesses to this grim spectacle, whereas we should

be the artisans of change.

Who can deny the seriousness of all this? Noble ideas, lofty sentiments

and good intentions are not enough for the well-being of humankind. Perhaps I

should add: "are no longer enough".

This is an obvious fact and should provide a basic tenet for our work.

We must all show our interest in it, so that our destiny might express our

determination. The world is changing, and in order to control these changes,

we are building the new order. This is a voluntary endeavour, based on the

respect of nations, on partnership, on interdependence. But who would deny

that the new world order has something of a colossus with feet of clay? On

what kind of world will this system be modelled?

More than 4 billion human beings live in poor countries. Whereas the

rich nations, with about 15 per cent of the world's population, control more

than 80 per cent of the world's income, about 60 per cent of humankind live in

low-income countries, and more than 3 billion people possess only 5 per cent

of the total income. With a population of more than 450 million, sub-Saharan

Africa has less than 1 per cent of the world's income.

Can we accept the exclusion of these millions of human beings? It is as

if history had speeded up, had shaken up our ways of thinking, leaving our

minds all confused. It is as if fragility had become the watchword of human

adventure.

No! At a time when we are all committed to building this new world

order, stronger solidarity is needed more than ever, because poverty is not

inevitable, nor is it a genetic defect.

The challenge is daunting. Short-term, stopgap solutions are not

enough. We simply must radically change the attitude and behaviour of the

industrialized world to the chronic plight of many countries in the South. In

order to do this, there can be no double standards, tacit tolerance for some

and vague promises for others. Have we the right today to denounce the

corruption, abuse and lapses that are widespread in many developing countries,

considering that these same practices were not so long ago tolerated and even

encouraged by some? Can we welcome the changes that have occurred and I am

referring to the democratization of institutions even though in many cases

they are accompanied by chaos and suffering?

Nevertheless, we must not underestimate the contribution that the

international community is entitled to expect from each country, considered as

it is to be an artisan of its own development. Each must, in particular,

establish institutions and procedures compatible with the rights and

obligations that all must now shoulder, regardless of level of development.

But what are we to think, what are we to say about the increasing

tensions between the industrialized North, certain that it is in the right,

and the South, which gets poorer all the time, plagued by contradiction and

seeking, sometimes clumsily, fresh sources of relief?

How sincere is the wealth of advice given in the options suggested, the

guidelines prescribed? Are we not in a diktat situation when we hear the

following: "Adopt reforms, democratize your institutions, go ahead and

liberalize your economies. Then, and only then, will we help you."

What developing country seeking an evolutive process has not been on the

receiving end of this kind of message? How few, without adapting, have

managed to adopt new, realistic and productive policies?

There is no single model exportable to all. There is no absolute model

that works for everyone. It is in the name of principles and experiments, all

too often garbled within the framework of open-economy programmes and

democratization, that crushing failures have occurred. Has the debt burden

been eased? Have commodity export earnings in the third world increased?

Clearly, one figure speaks for all the others: that of the aid given by

rich countries to the poorer ones. Logically, it shows the importance

attached by the donors to the development projects they are supposed to

support. But the figures are rarely commensurate with their lofty ambitions;

that we must admit.

Can it be expected by any chance of the smaller countries in

particular that they should use other means to generate the resources

necessary for their own development? This would be to ignore the economic

fact of interaction and interdependence, which are difficult to manage and

cannot really be the sole responsibility of these small countries.

In seeking financial assistance, expertise and transfers of technology,

we are trying first to encourage international solidarity, without excluding

anyone and within as broad a context as possible. Was not that the great

lesson of Rio, despite the flaws and imperfections of political dialogue, in

that it reminded those who had been tempted to forget that everything is global

nowadays for better or for worse, as in marriage where reason prevails

over emotion?

However, despite the urgent need for proper solutions, four months after

the Rio Conference we are once again deploring the inertia of political

dialogue, the complaisance of declarations of intent and the lack of

perseverance in following up decisions.

The right to make a mistake is not enshrined in any constitution, and yet

are not famine, war and environmental disasters to name just three of the

worst scourges monumental mistakes? Silence denotes guilt. We must not

quibble or condemn here. We must agree on what we can do - together.