From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 19:15:46 MDT
Secretary-General Address to the General Assembly
Source: UN page on Secretary General Kofi Annan (http://www.globalpolicy.org/secgen/annan/2002/0912ga.htm)
Authors: Kofi Annan
Dated: 2002-09-12
Mr. President,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We cannot begin today without reflecting on yesterday’s anniversary – on the criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces on 11 September 2001. The terrorist attacks of that day were not an isolated event. They were an extreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained and global response. Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite against it. Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, or overnight. It requires patience and persistence. And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.
Mr. President, I believe that such a response can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions. I stand before you today as a multilateralist – by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty.
I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All States have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.
Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression. They recognised that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities – like land, oil or gold – which one State can acquire at another’s expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbours are likely to have. And they recognised that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.
If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalisation? On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims. Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all. Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease. Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming; from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings.
That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism. Individual States may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.
On all these matters, for any one State – large or small – choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context. When countries work together in multilateral institutions – developing, respecting, and when necessary enforcing international law – they also develop mutual trust, and more effective cooperation on other issues. The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions – thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values – the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership. And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organisation has a special place.
Any State, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when States decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
Member States attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law. They have shown – notably in the action to liberate Kuwait, twelve years ago – that they are willing to take actions under the authority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing to take without it.
The existence of an effective international security system depends on the Council’s authority – and therefore on the Council having the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive at the outset. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council’s agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.
Mr. President, Let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadership and effective action are badly needed.
First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of us have recently been struggling to reconcile Israel’s legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs. But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. We must return to the search for a just and comprehensive solution, which alone can bring security and prosperity to both peoples, and indeed to the whole region. The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement is well known. It was defined long ago in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and its Israeli-Palestinian components were spelt out even more clearly in Resolution 1397: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders. Both parties accept this vision. But we can reach it only if we move rapidly and in parallel on all fronts. The so-called “sequential” approach has failed.
As we agreed at the Quartet meeting in Washington last May, an international peace conference is needed without delay, to set out a roadmap of parallel steps: steps to strengthen Israel’s security, steps to strengthen Palestinian economic and political institutions, and steps to settle the details of the final peace agreement. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified. The need is urgent.
Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, including the need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions.
Efforts to obtain Iraq’s compliance with the Council’s resolutions must continue. I appeal to all who have influence with Iraq’s leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is the indispensable first step towards assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and – let me stress – towards the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so many hardships for the Iraqi people. I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations – for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq’s defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.
Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the international community, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan. I know I speak for all in welcoming President Karzai to this Assembly, and congratulating him on his escape from last week’s vicious assassination attempt – a graphic reminder of how hard it is to uproot the remnants of terrorism in any country where it has taken root. It was the international community’s shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al-Qaeda.
Today, Afghanistan urgently needs help in two areas. The government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country. Without this, all else may fail. And donors must follow through on their commitments to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. Otherwise the Afghan people will lose hope – and desperation, we know, breeds violence.
Fourth, and finally, in South Asia the world has recently come closer than for many years past to a direct conflict between two nuclear weapon capable countries. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remains perilous. The underlying causes must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupts, the international community might have a role to play; though I gladly acknowledge - indeed, strongly welcome - the efforts made by well-placed Member States to help the two leaders find a solution.
Excellencies, let me conclude by reminding you of your pledge two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, “to make the United Nations a more effective instrument” in the service of the world’s peoples. Today I ask all of you to honour that pledge. Let us all recognise, from now on – in each of our capitals, in every nation, large and small – that the global interest is our national interest.
Thank you very much.
[hr]
Mandela Calls U.S. a 'Threat to World Peace'
Source: Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1440192
Authors: Editors
Dated: 2002-09-12
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Former South African President Nelson Mandela has branded the United States a "threat to world peace" ahead of a speech by President Bush expected to challenge the United Nations over Iraq.
In an interview with Newsweek magazine done on Monday, the Nobel Peace laureate criticized the United States for acting unilaterally and undermining the United Nations as a forum for settling international disputes. He said U.S. hardline policies aimed to please American oil and arms companies.
"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace," the revered 84-year-old African statesman said in the interview, which appears on Newsweek's Web site.
Bush is expected to deliver a toughly worded challenge to the United Nations later on Thursday to force Iraq to disarm or risk irrelevance.
The Bush administration has repeatedly insisted on what it calls a "regime change" for Iraq, a euphemism for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"...What (America) is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the (U.N.) Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries," Mandela said.
"That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms."
Saddam, whose country has the second largest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia, has been vilified by the West since he invaded Kuwait in 1990. A U.S.-led coalition ejected Iraq's occupying forces from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War.
POLITICS AND OIL
The United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait and imposed U.N. weapons inspectors on the country after the Gulf War. The inspectors left in 1998 ahead of a U.S.-British bombing campaign carried out in the name of forcing greater inspections compliance from Iraq.
Bush and his top aides have accused Iraq of seeking weapons of mass destruction, saying it poses a danger to the Middle East region and the West. Iraq denies the charges.
"It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America," Mandela said.
Mandela championed the fight against white minority rule and emerged from 27 years in apartheid jails to become South Africa's first black president from 1994 to 1999.
During his presidency, Mandela's close ties to Cuba's Fidel Castro and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi irked Washington.
Mandela said Bush and his staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, had given no evidence to back their weapons claims against Iraq.
"But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that," Mandela said.
Mandela said while it was not his personal view, others believed there was an element of racism behind Washington's unilateral policies.
"Many people say quietly, but they don't have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white (U.N.) secretaries-general you didn't find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations," he said.
"But now that you've had black secretaries-general like...Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it," Mandela added.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26560>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:57 MDT