Zimbabwe, 1992

I should like, at the outset to

congratulate His Excellency Mr. Stoyan Ganev, Deputy Prime Minister and

Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, on his unanimous election to the presidency of

the General Assembly of the United Nations at its the forty-seventh session.

His election is recognition of his diplomatic skills and the respect for

international law in his country. We are confident that the international

community will benefit from his presidency.

I also take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to his

predecessor. His Excellency Ambassador Samir Shihabi of Saudi Arabia, who

diligently presided over the General Assembly at its forty-sixth session in an

exemplary manner. We thank him for his efforts.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali,

has been at the helm of our Organization for nearly a year now. We have

already appreciated his style of work and the vigorous responses to the

various crises that have beset the international community. We want to

reiterate our confidence in his work and our continuing support for his

leadership.

I welcome into our midst, as others before me have done, the 12 new

Members of the United Nations. Their admission draws the United Nations

closer to the realization of the principle of universality of membership.

This development is particularly welcome at this time, when a rejuvenated and

vigorous United Nations is closely involved in the resolution of many

conflicts and crises around the world. It makes the pronouncements and

actions of the world body that much more effective.

It has now become clear to all that the end of the cold war has not been

a panacea for the world's ills, especially the ills of third world countries.

In some areas, and in some respects, these problems have been compounded by

the upsurge in intense nationalism and new brands of religion. The end of the

cold war has not yet brought tangible results and change for the Palestinian

people in the Middle East, the black majority in South Africa, or peace to the

peoples of Afghanistan, Cambodia, the Western Sahara and many other areas of

conflict in the world. However, new and determined efforts are being made to

resolve some of these problems peacefully, and we hope that these efforts will

succeed.

The tenth Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, held recently in Indonesia,

drew attention to the failure of all the multilateral talks aimed at narrowing

the gap between developed and third world countries. In many areas, this

economic gap has widened. The Summit confirmed the validity of the Movement

in the current international situation, but it urged its members both to join

hands in fighting the common economic and financial problems of the South and

to promote economic cooperation among members of the South themselves. The

fast-growing economies of South-East Asian countries have shown the capacity

for intra-regional cooperation among developing countries and what can be

achieved. In the place of cold-war issues, the Movement has put economic and

financial matters on its agenda, and we hope that these will be tackled very

forcefully over the next three years.

In our region of southern Africa, our economic problems have been

compounded by the very severe drought we are all facing. In the past, we used

to export large quantities of white maize, but this year we have had to import

13 million tons of grain alone. Although the States in the region are fully

cooperating in the areas of transport and energy supply, other areas of our

cooperation would be greatly increased were the evil apartheid system in South

Africa brought to an end and a non-racial and democratic system established in

that country.

The regime of President F. W. de Klerk which has been commented upon by

a number of speakers has put the brakes on the transition process that was

being discussed at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (COPESA). It

has also very effectively undermined the entire process by condoning and

abetting the escalating violence against innocent black people and

demonstrators.

Mr. de Klerk has lost credibility in the eyes of the international

community. He must take steps now to release all political prisoners; we are

told there are 140 prisoners still languishing in jail. He must abandon or

close down the single men's hostels, which are being used by armed gangs as

camps. He must forbid the carrying of any weapon for any purpose in public

places. He should disband all extraterritorial battalions, such as Koevoet

and Battalions 31 and 32; in fact, he should ban all private armies and

militia units. These are not drastic measures by any means. They are the

minimum steps that must be taken to level the playing field so that all South

African political parties and teams can play on it.

The current problems of prisoners, hostels, weapons and private militias

are a direct consequence of the evil system of apartheid itself, which the

international community has described as a crime against humanity. We must

stress that that system has not yet ended, although some bold steps have been

taken in the last two years towards removing it. But it is still there.

We commend the role the international community has played, and continues

to play, in South Africa in line with Security Council resolution 765 (1992)

of 16 July 1992. It is still our belief that to deal adequately with the

situation of violence in the country a substantial number of observers many

more than the current 50 or so - should be dispatched to the country so that

they cover all potential flash points. Only a credible and effective

international presence can prevent the violence and restore the confidence

among the parties in South Africa that is necessary for successful

negotiations.

It has become obvious that the international community has made the

greatest headway on the South African issue when it has acted in unison. We

need unity-in-action from the international community. The De Klerk

Government must come out unequivocally on the side of majority rule as

understood by all civilised nations, without any conditions or vetoes for

minorities. The regime's primary responsibility is to provide security and

safety for all South Africans, and therefore it needs to take decisive action

not only for the protection of all citizens of the country, as I indicated

earlier, but also to carry forward the current process of eliminating

apartheid through peaceful means.

Developments elsewhere in our region give much greater cause for hope,

but the peace processes in question need to be carefully nurtured if success

is to be guaranteed. In Angola adequate preparations appear to have been made

for the general elections that are to take place in the next few days. The

Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs of Angola gave a detailed account of the

arrangements that have been made for the elections in that country. The

Angolan people, he indicated, will be given an opportunity to elect a

government of their choice.

The greatest praise for this achievement must go to the Angolan people

themselves, who have shown great maturity and patriotism in the face of

difficulties and mutual suspicions nurtured by 16 years of war. Some praise

must, however, also go to the United Nations, which has steadfastly supported

the Angolan peace process, particularly through the deployment of the United

Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM II), a peace-keeping operation in

which my country, Zimbabwe, is also playing a modest part.

We are glad that the problems that had arisen with regard to the

registration of voters, particularly logistical problems of access by

voter-registration officials to various parts of the country, have now been

resolved and that incidents of violence in the electioneering process have not

been allowed to get out of hand. We also commend the pledge by the main

parties in the Angolan elections that they will respect the poll result and

that if they win they will endeavour to establish a government of national

unity and reconciliation. The concept of bringing all sections of society

into government is indeed an act of statesmanship that takes into account the

traditions of the African people.

With regard to Mozambique, we believe that a comprehensive cease-fire

will be signed on 1 October 1992. We hope that this solemn commitment will be

upheld and respected by all the signatories and, in fact, by all the

Mozambican people. After so many years of fighting, Mozambicans want peace,

tranquillity and progress, but to achieve peace a lot of work still remains to

be done. There is need for flexibility on both sides, and for active

participation by all States in the region, including the Republic of South

Africa, in the peace process.

Zimbabwe has done, and will continue to do, all in its power to help

maintain the momentum and keep the peace process in Mozambique moving

forward. As all delegates are aware, the Rome Declaration envisages an

eventual United Nations monitoring role in Mozambique's electoral process, and

we trust that all States will support such an undertaking by this world body.

The situation in Somalia, to which many speakers have referred, is a

cause of deep concern in my country; 2 million people may die and 5 million

need food aid. The extent of the suffering, which is now labelled the world's

worst human disaster, could have been greatly alleviated had the world body

acted earlier and with speed. However, we commend the decisive steps that

have now been taken by the Security Council, especially the decision to

dispatch 3,500 troops to protect food shipments and distribution. My country

is proud to be participating in this operation, which is aimed at averting a

famine of genocidal dimensions in Somalia.

We urge the various clan militias in the country not to disrupt the

United Nations effort, but to engage in negotiations aimed at reuniting and

bringing peace to their tortured people. The leaders of the three political

factions in Somalia must be condemned for intensifying civil strife in a

society that is already ravaged by so much famine and drought. They should

instead be unifying and reconciling their people, reconciling the nation, in

order to enable it to withstand the drought more effectively.

In West Africa the continued elusiveness of a solution to the Liberian

conflict is also a cause of grave concern. We commend the efforts of the

Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Governments to bring peace

and democracy to Liberia. Fighting between rival factions in recent days may

embroil forces of the ECOWAS Cease-fire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) in more

fighting and make the whole situation intractable. We urge our Liberian

brothers to put the safety and future of their people and country before

personal gain and aggrandizement, and we urge our ECOWAS brothers also to

continue with their efforts in attempting to bring peace to Liberia.

The crisis in the Middle East has dragged on for a long time, dating from

the cold-war era. Our hopes were raised that a solution would be found in the

current round of peace talks that began with the Madrid Conference. We still

place our hopes in that process, and hope that the advent of a Labour

Government in Israel will result in a more imaginative and flexible attitude

that can lead to a solution adequately addressing the legitimate aspirations

of the Palestinian people. Clearly, the new Israeli Government must accept

the principle of the complete withdrawal of its troops of occupation from

Palestine and the assumption of full control by the Palestinians over their

own resources, including water resources, as fundamental to the resolution of

the Palestinian issue. Further, it is important for the United Nations to

assume a central role in the peace process, particularly as its resolutions

served as terms of reference for the Madrid Conference.

There are many other areas of crisis and conflict that require, and are

getting, the attention of this world body, such as Cyprus, Cambodia,

Afghanistan, Western Sahara and others. The United Nations must continue to

ensure that in Western Sahara, the referendum plan is carried out in a manner

that reflects the genuine aspirations of the Sahrawi people; that in Cambodia,

full and comprehensive implementation of the Paris Accords is achieved; that

in Cyprus, a solution that preserves the unity of the country and its

sovereignty and territorial integrity is found; and that in Afghanistan also,

the unity of the country is ensured and peace realized.

The most explosive areas in the whole world today, however, remain the

countries of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the former

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which have been the subject of much

comment by earlier speakers. In these areas, once the communist parties that

held power collapsed, the remaining, separate ethnic entities were engulfed in

intense local tribalism and in an upsurge of religious fundamentalism. Our

experiences in Africa reveal that social situations of tribalism and/or

religious fundamentalism cannot be resolved simply by calling an election, or

by using military force alone; what is often required is a deliberate act of

national reconciliation that establishes a government of national unity and

distributes power and influence to every segment of the society. This is a

political game in which there should be no losers: the purpose of an election

becomes that of establishing the relative strengths of the participating

parties and therefore the weight or seats they should have in a government of

national unity.

In the case of Yugoslavia, from the very beginning my delegation felt

that when the upsurge of tribal feeling hit that unhappy land, a conference of

national reconciliation should have been convened. If some tribes insisted on

getting out of the federal arrangement, they should have been required to sign

a treaty guaranteeing the rights of the minority tribes to power-sharing and

to enforcement of full human rights within their own territories,

because let us face it - the main problem in Yugoslavia is the patchwork of

tribal units that are spread throughout that land.

We ourselves have never believed that the European Economic Community's

policy of early recognition of Croatia and Slovenia on the one hand and the

severe punishment of Serbia and Montenegro on the other would solve the

problems of tribal and religious feelings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the

numbers in the ethnic mix are almost equal. We strongly condemn the obnoxious

policy of so-called ethnic cleansing by the competing tribes in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

The expulsion or killing of any one person in the process of so-called

cleansing does not solve any problem; instead, it creates a psychological,

vicious circle of communal violence. However, when we discuss the question of

Yugoslavia in this world body soon, we would urge a word of caution: to seek

reconciliation and not to ridicule any of the warring tribes of former

Yugoslavia. The fact that persons drawn from different ethnic, racial,

religious, linguistic and cultural groups live together should be a point of

strength rather than weakness; in fact, former Yugoslavia used to pride itself

on that very fact. Here in the United States of America, the country draws

much strength from the cultural diversity of its people, who live together

happily under one political system. That is broadly what we should aim at in

the context of the Balkans.

The subject of restructuring the United Nations system has been on our

agenda for some time now. My delegation put some specific proposals before

the summit of world leaders held here last January. The thrust of our

contribution was the need to democratize the international system and the

empowerment of the voice of third world countries within that system.

We are pleased that the Secretary-General has followed up the work of

that summit with a comprehensive statement entitled "An Agenda for Peace"

(A/47/277). We agree with most of the well-thought-out conclusions and

suggestions in the report; in particular, we agree with the emphasis he puts

on democratic practices and the commitment to full human and political rights

within our societies. On the subject of tribalism and nationalism, which we

have been discussing, he says:

"if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there

would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and economic

well-being for all would become ever more difficult to achieve".

(A/47/277, para. 17)

We also endorse the recommendation that more should be done to assist the

countries that become victims of economic sanctions applied by this world body

against other States. A meaningful and fair programme and mode of

compensation for victim States would encourage them to apply United

Nations-sponsored sanctions more faithfully, which would result in greater

effectiveness of those sanctions.

It is also our view that the United Nations should have its own dedicated

and committed armed units on a permanent basis, so that in its enforcement

actions the world body acts as the world body, not as only some of its parts

or some of its Members. The Charter itself provides for the United Nations to

function in that fashion, and we believe that it is time the relevant

provisions in this regard were reactivated.

Given the centrality of the Security Council to the question of the

maintenance of international peace and security, any discussion of security

issues cannot be complete without a look at the procedures of that body

itself. We are aware of the circumstances in which the power of veto was

given to those who now possess it in the Council. The point at issue now is

whether arrangements that appeared fair or at least justifiable 47 years

ago are still viable today. We believe this is an issue which needs rational

discussion in which all States would participate equally and all views would

be given a fair hearing. Only such a fair exchange of views can result in the

peaceful new world order that we are all seeking.

Needless to say, conflicts are not only the result of injustice within

and among nations but also the result of poverty, want and despair. The past

decade has seen a massive deterioration in the standards of living of peoples

in the developing world. This poverty is traceable not only to the policies

of individual third world Governments but also to the capricious and

pernicious international environment in which they operate: not only have the

prices for raw materials - the mainstays of our economies - been seriously

depressed throughout the past decade, but we have also faced extremely high

interest rates and increased protectionism from the markets of developed

countries. Far from being recipients of capital, we have become net exporters

of hard currency, and today we jointly labour under a foreign debt of some

$1.3 trillion. Some of us have, in addition to all this, suffered natural

disasters such as the drought, to which I have referred, that is ravaging

southern Africa at the present time.

Poverty and want breed despair, and despair, of course, breeds conflict.

If the international community is to address peace and security issues

adequately, it needs to attend seriously to the causes of despair in the world

today. There can be no human right greater than the right to food, the right

to shelter and the right to life itself and, during life, the right to

literacy. The world body and its specialized agencies must address these

issues as a matter of urgency.

In this regard, we are pleased at the plethora of projects now under way

to make the United Nations focus on issues of economic development and social

and humanitarian issues, such as the Nordic project. We believe the time has

also come when a frank appraisal should be made of the global economy with a

view to eliminating some of the built-in obstacles to growth for developing

countries.

I must return again to the theme of the Movement of Non-Aligned

Countries, namely, how to close the widening economic gap between rich and

poor nations. My delegation supports the convening of an international

conference on social development, planned for 1994 or 1995. Such a gathering

would assist in defining clearly the basic needs of human beings on this Earth

in this nuclear age, needs which must be met in order for them to live a

decent, satisfying and enriched life - in answer to the question. What does

an ordinary human being need? and it would also map out a genuine path of

development for third world countries in the South. The conference could play

a very important part in showing the correct path to development. The paths

that have been chosen for development have led us in different directions, and

some of them have led us into culs-de-sac. We need to think deeper and to act

more decisively in order to chart the correct path. To that extent, we

strongly support the convening of the conference on social development.

That should be the essence of the new world order to which we should all

aspire. It should be an international order guided by the twin objectives of

universal peace and security, on the one hand, and an improved quality of life

for all the Earth's inhabitants, on the other. It must also be an order

characterized by justice and respect for international law. We third world

countries should join enthusiastically in the promotion of the current Decade

of International Law, because that is our only shield against the arbitrary

actions of some big Powers. Our sovereignty and our national

self-determination are deeply rooted in our political philosophies, of various

kinds, but they are also anchored in the practice of international law. We

should uphold that shield even more vigorously in the so-called new world

order that is emerging. We should also uphold the Charter of the United

Nations, which gives us some of the basic principles on which the

international system has operated for so many years, nearly half a century.

Today we stand at a crossroads. The collapse of the old order gives us

the rare opportunity to build something new in its place. Shall we use this

opportunity wisely, or not? History has taught us salutary lessons about the

price mankind has had to pay for opportunities that are missed. In our

deliberations in this forum and in others, we shall all help determine the

shape of this new order that is coming. Zimbabwe intends to participate, with

others, actively in that debate to ensure that the much-heralded new world

order will be a just, humane and enlightened one that will bring an

improvement to the quality of life of all of humanity and provide for the

basic needs of all human beings, and especially in our developing societies.

The global community has the means and the capacity to provide for those basic

needs.