|
home Speechs in the year 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 --> |
Oleh/By : DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : NEW YORK, U.S.A
Tarikh/Date : 27/09/96
Tajuk/Title : THE PLENARY OF THE FIFTY-FIRST
SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1. I am happy to acknowledge a Malaysian as the
President of the General Assembly, a first for
Malaysia. We are thankful to all member states for
their support, especially the members of the Asian
Group, which endorsed Malaysia's candidature early.
2. I would like to think that the selection has to
do with Malaysia's efforts and involvement with the
UN and globally. Within three years of Malaysia's
independence, we were involved in UN peace-keeping
operations in the Congo. Today in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Malaysia is perhaps the only developing
country participating in the NATO-led peace-keeping
forces, paying in full the cost of our involvement.
Malaysia will continue to participate in
international activities, UN sponsored or otherwise,
combining altruism with enlightened self-interest.
3. This time last year, there was much celebration
as the UN attained its 50th year. Amidst the
celebrations extolling the achievements of the UN,
there were serious concerns expressed about the
relevance and effectiveness of this organisation,
and the need for democratic reforms so that the UN
can better fulfil the purposes and principles of the
Charter. The 50th anniversary came and went and
despite the extravaganza, very little has been
achieved.
4. The organisation itself remains distant and
removed from the aspirations of the `peoples of the
UN' which it is supposed to promote and protect.
Hopefully, the tragedy of Bosnia-Herzegovina will,
with international help, be on the mend but
Palestine's hopes and aspirations have been
undermined by the new Israel government, backed
unfortunately by some Western powers, backtracking
on painfully negotiated agreements. At this moment,
a rash decision by Israel not only imperils further
the peace process, with lives being lost but can
inflame and outrage Muslim states and Muslim Society
if the sanctity of the Al-Aqsa Mosque is defiled.
In Africa, Somalia, Rwanda and Liberia remain on the
razor's edge of survival and Burundi awaits UN and
regional initiatives to avoid a catastrophe. And
there are countries like Afghanistan, victims of the
Cold War, abandoned by the major powers, needing
help to reconstruct and overcome the destruction
wrought by war. And what will be the fate of tiny
Chechnya and its valiant people, facing the full
onslaught of mighty Russia?
5. While some developing countries get fragmented
and marginalised, the process of power accretion and
benefits continue with the major countries, aided by
their control of the Security Council, their
monopoly of nuclear power and their economic high
ground. One sees various twists and turns, double
standards and selectivity, as the dictates of
domestic politics overrule justice and
humanitarianism in international affairs.
Commitment to multilateralism is so qualified and
investment in the UN so tentative that common needs
have often been sacrificed.
6. Now as the United Nations begins its 51st
session, we urge again that the international
community work collectively for substantial change,
reflecting a more equitable sharing of political and
economic power. This call for reform is made even
more urgent when we consider that the premises by
which international relations are conducted today
continue to perpetuate a grossly unjust system.
7. The systematic abuse of power by the major
countries has continued. They apply selective
sanctions and double standards on the developing
world to promote their narrow national interests.
Clearly disregarding multilateralism, with its
inherent qualities of mutual respect and shared
interests, the North continue their vice-like grip
on all spheres of international activity -
politics, international trade, development, the
environment and the media to name a few.
8. Elitism exercised by the major countries is
frequently cloaked as `globalism' or as serving the
common interests of nations. However even a cursory
examination of this brand of globalism reveals it to
be sanctimonious if not hypocritical. For example,
under the guise of safeguarding `international peace
and security', the nuclear weapon states maintain
their right to destroy, or threaten to destroy, all
life on this planet. Yet these countries deny
others even the right to use conventional weapons
for self-defence.
9. Malaysia deeply regrets the lack of a consensus
on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) but
welcomes its subsequent adoption by the 50th General
Assembly. We worry about nuclear aspirations in our
region and that of Israel. To a large extent the
refusal of the Nuclear Weapon States to a time-table
for nuclear disarmament is responsible for this
situation and seriously flaws the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty. Malaysia is encouraged by the recent
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on
the legality of the threat or use of nuclear
weapons. To render the Court's finding meaningful
there should be serious efforts made towards
accelerating the process of nuclear disarmament
including the early convening of a Special Session
of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.
10. While these major powers advocate peace and
condemn arms races by others, their industries
aggressively develop and promote the sales of
defense technologies and weapons of death. Like a
drug dealer supplying his helplessly addicted
victims, the Northern-based arms industries keep
poor countries mired in a cycle of poverty and
insecurity, laying waste vital human skills and
resources.
11. Perhaps such political elitism comes naturally
to these powerful countries, many of which were
imperial powers before. A clue as to their
priorities for the global agenda is to be found in
the recent communique of the G-7 Economic Summit.
Reform of the United Nations, in particular the
Security Council as urgent issues gave way to the
pre-eminence of globalisation of the world economy.
And so the Security Council remains as a blunt
instrument of the foreign policies of the permanent
members.
12. In the context of a globalised world, much is
made of the terms `inter-dependence' and `mutual
interests'. Multilateralism has been elbowed aside.
Yet multilateralism is the foundation of
international relations and cooperation which the UN
symbolises. From now on globalisation will take
over and nations will lose their sovereignty.
13. Consider the current financial crisis that
faces this organisation. The United Nations is on
the verge of bankruptcy being held to ransom by its
major donor country, the wealthiest nation in the
world. That country refuses to meet its assessed and
legally due contributions, yet insists on
maintaining its hegemony on global management.
14. The major powers' solution to the United
Nations stalemate is to speak of revitalising the UN
as if they were conducting a corporate down-sizing
exercise. While ending bureaucratic inefficiencies
and wasteful use of resources are important, we
should be mindful that the UN is not a business
house. Over concentration on internal management
issues can deflect the UN's attention from its major
global responsibilities. While Malaysia is critical
of the management and leadership of the UN, we
cannot but regret the tendency of major powers to
assign the UN complex tasks, missions impossible,
without clear mandates and authority, nor adequate
resources. How does the UN undertake peace-keeping
operations without the authority or the means to
keep the peace?
15. We find the inequities of power-sharing in the
United Nations to be intolerable and view with alarm
prevailing trends to weaken this organisation
further. Already, the centre of gravity for all
principal economic decisions that affect developing
countries is vested in the undemocratic Bretton
Woods institutions, the WTO and of course the self-
appointed Group of Seven.
16. Strengthening multilateralism requires a reform
of the Bretton Woods institutions which dominate the
development scene. These institutions are operating
against their overall mandate. Decision-making is
undemocratic and untransparent. Despite their
specific mandates to facilitate development and
regulate the international monetary system, these
institutions are used to discipline third world
countries, and to act as debt collectors for the
rich North. It is salutary to note that the World
Bank collected a net amount of $7.2 billion in 1995
in debt repayment over and above what it disbursed
in aid to the poor indebted countries and raked in a
profit of almost $1.5 billion. The International
Monetary Fund has now become an enforcer of the
dictates of market lenders and is now assuming the
role of a global rating agency.
17. The majority of poor developing countries are
saddled with unsustainable levels of debt, which
preclude them from having a share of world
prosperity and growth. Debt service on current
scales is untenable and debtor countries as a
consequence can do little to alleviate their poverty
and misery. The chilling numbers speak for
themselves - more is spent on servicing debt than on
financing basic programmes for health care,
education and humanitarian relief.
18. The reductions in the commitments for
concessional assistance by almost all the industrial
countries mark a turning point in the international
development co-operation. Bluntly put, the rich
have reneged on solemn commitments and pledges. The
cut-backs in pledges for the replenishment of IDA,
and unwillingness to clear earlier arrears,
triggered by a unilateral decision of the major
contributor to scale back its contributions, have
led other donors to scale back their contributions
as well.
19. Now that the concept of globalism is so
intimately linked with international trade, it is
important to critically examine the realities of
this so-called `free trade'. The painfully long
history of the Uruguay Round negotiations should
have forewarned us that the WTO, although
established as a rules-based multilateral
organisation to regulate international trade, will
become answerable only to the world's wealthiest
economic powers. Like the Bretton Woods
institutions, the WTO remains outside any
relationship of accountability to the far more
democratic United Nations General Assembly.
20. During the Uruguay Round, the developing
countries discovered that instead of negotiating
international rules on trade in manufactured goods,
the rich countries of the North had widened the
agenda and pushed for liberalisation in economic
areas where they clearly have an advantage, in
particular the financial services and investments.
21. Even though some countries of the South have
benefitted from the liberalisation of trade, and
Malaysia is one of them, the GATT agreement
nevertheless harbours new threats to developing and
newly emerging economies. Not only have the poor
countries of the South to struggle uphill merely to
meet the basic needs of their peoples, but they are
now bullied into adjusting their economic policies
to meet their new obligations under GATT so that
Northern-based corporations can penetrate and
capture their markets. The poor may not reserve
their markets for themselves even when they have no
capacity to penetrate the markets of the rich.
22. Fair competition and level playing fields are
only for the rich. For example, their attempts to
link the environment and labour standards to trade
in manufactured goods is a clear attempt to deny
developing countries their meagre competitive
advantage. The relationship between trade and
labour standards emerged not because of a concern
for the well-being of workers in poor countries, but
as protectionist moves aimed against growing and
competitively-priced imports from the South.
23. To compound this unfair interpretation of the
multilateral trade rules, we find that when it comes
to technology transfer, the Northern countries take
a fiercely anti-liberal stand, insisting that all
WTO member states compulsorily introduce a set of
national laws to protect intellectual property
rights. Since most patents are owned by the North,
this in effect means legal protection of their
technological monopoly and a drastic curtailment of
the right of developing countries to have access to
new technology.
24. It appears therefore that the Northern
interpretation of `free trade' and `liberalisation'
are slogans that in reality mean liberalisation when
it benefits the North but protectionism if it can
block the South. Thus while goods and capital are
permitted and encouraged to move around the globe,
labour and technology may not.
25. Even as we are asked to submit to GATT rules
and the WTO, we find one country blatantly
undermining the WTO by enacting extra-territorial
laws which must be submitted to by all nations and
their companies on pains of ex-communication.
26. The GATT agreement also fails to protect the
genetic resources of the South whilst allowing
genetically modified materials to be patented. We
now have a situation where theft of genetic
resources by Western biotech TNCs enables them to
make huge profits by producing patented genetic
mutations of these same materials. What depths have
we sunk to in the global market place when natures
gifts to the poor may not be protected but their
modifications by the rich become exclusive property.
27. There are of course many gainers and losers in
the world of the WTO, but we are concerned that the
major losers will once again be the poorest and most
marginalised countries. A small number of
developing countries, like Malaysia, have
benefitted. But let me point out that our gains
have been through thrift, productivity and ingenuity
of our people, hard-earned fruits of our labour.
Lest it be forgotten, our new found prosperity has
also benefitted those in the developed countries.
Our products are competitively priced - contributing
to lowered inflation in the rich countries. Our
prosperity has provided vast and expanding markets
for the goods of rich countries - creating jobs and
helping to lower their unemployment rates.
28. The term `globalisation' has become the
buzzword of our times. In the G-7 communique,
globalisation was touted as `the source of hope for
the future, responsible for the expansion of wealth
and prosperity in the world.' However, some would
argue that globalisation, with its objective of
breaking down borders and sucking the countries of
the world into one single economic entity has
eclipsed multilateralism or attempts to masquerade
as the same thing. Indeed, globalisation has been
described by the rich as a `new global partnership
for development'.
29. If the current behaviour of the rich countries
is anything to go by, globalisation simply means the
breaking down of the borders of countries so that
those with the capital and the goods will be free to
dominate the markets. Colonies in the former
British Empire will remember `Imperial Preference'
when they were made the exclusive markets of the
metropolitan power. Globalisation can mean just
that except that the world market will belong to the
rich nations. Linkages to non-trade issues will
prevent the poor from ever challenging the rich, in
the same way the colonies were not allowed to
industrialise.
30. We do indeed live in a brutal and unjust world
where the astonishing developments in science and
technology, and our increasingly sophisticated
knowledge base, are not matched by the ability of
governments to marshal forces to overcome the social
and economic inequities of their countries. The
facts and figures are well documented and widely
known, but it is worth repeating just to jog our
concience, if we still have any.
31. What are the universal values of this
globalised world when increasing numbers of people
in both the North and South live in abject poverty?
1.3 billion people, a fifth of the human race, lack
access to the most basic necessities, such as food
and clean drinking water, while preventable hunger
and disease kill 35,000 children throughout the
world every day. The 1996 UN Human Development
Report states that in the last 40 years, the richest
20 percent of people have seen the differential
between themselves and the poorest 20 percent
double.
32. Are we expected to believe in the sincerity of
the rich countries when they talk about a `new
global partnership' and `the achievement of
sustainable development' when the facts are that
today we have over 20 million environmental refugees
in addition to an equal number of traditional
refugees. Why should the developing countries
accept the twisted lexicon of Northern development-
speak - when `development assistance' means that the
net flow of wealth from poor countries to rich has
increased to at least US$400 billion a year, when
the terms of trade, transfer pricing, debt servicing
and the brain drain are taken into account.
33. Wading through the burdens of this strife-torn
world is a critical dilemma that faces the
international community today. It is one of
international leadership and the failure to deal
with these critical issues. Instead we witness a
persistent abnegation by the major powers of the
responsibilities that accompany the rights and
privileges of such authority. We must determine the
type of world and society we want to live in and
these should be based on truly universal values.
34. As we approach the next millennium where the
pre-eminence of transnational forces has blurred the
definition of national sovereignty, we must
seriously question why a powerful minority are still
allowed to bankrupt and coerce the majority to meet
their narrow economic and political ends. The poor
are no longer independent. They have already lost
control over their own currency. And now they have
lost their borders too.
35. Freedom of the press is touted as a basic
democratic principle. But control of the media by a
handful of Western corporations has made nonsense of
this principle.
36. Proclaiming to be `windows on the world', the
Western media, manipulated and censored by those in
control, invariably manage to distort reports so as
to put anything happening in the South in the worst
possible light. Anything positive in the developing
countries is ignored.
37. The growth and influence of electronic,
satellite and information technology is astounding.
But its impact poses one of the biggest political
and ethical challenges of our time, subverting and
distorting our social consciousness. The elites of
the North and South have become blind to the
enormities of reality. Events and people are
stripped of their context, so we become less capable
of recognising the common humanity and equal rights
of all people in the world. Pictures of poverty and
inequality are no longer received with moral
outrage, but become simple facts of life. Thus
begins the process of dehumanisation and
disengagement from the rest of human society.
38. Although without doubt the information age will
bring cheap and easy access to knowledge and
education, and will facilitate worldwide business,
already its abuse is affecting the moral values of
the world. Smut and violence gratuitously
distributed by criminals in the North is no less
polluting than carbon dioxide emissions nor less
dangerous than drug trafficking. If one great power
can apply its laws to citizens of another country
considered guilty of drug trafficking, why cannot
countries with different moral codes extradite the
traffickers of pornography for legal action under
the laws of the offended nation? Why cannot there
be international laws and international courts to
punish those who spread filth and incite racial
hatred and racial violence? Before the whole world
sinks deeper into moral decay, the international
community should act. Abuse of the ubiquitous
Internet system must be stopped.
39. Monopoly of the electronic media by the North
should be broken. As it is we are getting slanted
news made worse by broadcasters interpreting in
favour of their own or their countries' interests.
As usual the poor countries with no role in
operating the international media, have become the
principal victims of `world news networks'. Not
only are distorted pictures of our countries being
broadcast but our own capacity to understand what is
happening is being undermined. In the past Western
missionaries spread the gospel. Today the media has
taken over and all our cherished values and diverse
cultures are being destroyed.
40. The UN has not always been a failure. In its
early years it helped to dismantle the empires of
Western European countries. Malaysia is grateful
for it too won freedom because of the moral suasion
of the UN. But the UN now seems blind to what is
being done towards Iraq and Chechnya. One great
power continues its vendetta against Iraq firing
missiles at distant targets to bring Iraqi
leadership to its knees, oblivious to the sufferings
of the besieged Iraqi people. Another power has
shut the gates of mercy on the Chechens and with
rockets and bombs have killed indiscriminately and
with appalling brutality in order that Chechnya
remains part of an empire. How much more should the
Chechens suffer before the Security Council takes
notice? Where are the vaunted defenders of human
rights who claim that national borders will not stop
them?
41. It is a fact that every year many statements
are made at the United Nations that lament the
crises of poverty, third world debt, human rights
abuse, conflicts and wars, social disintegration and
environmental degradation. It is boring almost.
And yet nothing much has been done which could bring
about amelioration of this sad state of affairs.
42. Perhaps it is because the processes of inter-
governmental consensus decision-making of the United
Nations, are tedious and frustrating.
43. Perhaps it is the mismanagement by the
Governments of so many of the poor nations which
afford many excuses for the rich not to help.
44. It is of course easy to use the United Nations
as a forum to unmask the hypocrisies of both the
North and the South, but it is more difficult to
work collectively to implement change and solve
problems. Still Malaysia believes this repetitive
criticism is valid and necessary, that international
injustices and oppressions should not be swept in
the dustbins of history. I would like to say again
that Malaysia strongly believes in the
multilateralism of the United Nations and is
prepared to invest in this international
organisation with all our strength, beliefs and
moral fibre.
|