STATEMENT

BY

H.E. MR. CLEMENT J. ROHEE

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA

AT THE

55TH SESSION OF THE

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

UN HEADQUARTERS, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 19, 2000

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary-General

Distinguished Delegates,

Still fresh in our minds is the strong plea made by the leaders of the world at their historic meeting on the eve of this 55th Assembly for a universal recommitment to multilateralism and to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Their Declaration at the Summit's end was unanimous and unambiguous. Humanity's future lies in the hands of this organisation and its ability to create a new global order for the promotion of peace and development. It is a conclusion which the Assembly must take to heart if it is to fulfill this urgent mandate.

I am confident, Mr. President, that our task will be facilitated by your skilful direction. Coming as you do from Finland, a country that has been forged by history on the anvil of political, economic and social endurance, you will undoubtedly bring to bear on our deliberations, a sense of purpose and urgency. In congratulating you on your election, Guyana pledges a readiness to cooperate with you to make this Assembly abundantly successful.

My delegation also offers its appreciation and thanks to His Excellency Mr. Theo Ben Gurirab for the able leadership which he provided the 54th General Assembly.

Our gratitude is also due to Secretary-General Kofi Annan who continues to manage the Organisation with a sure and steady hand. The report which he has submitted to the Assembly- 'We the peoples-the Role of the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century'-amply addresses the many important challenges which lie ahead of us. It is well worth our study to see what measures the Assembly can take to promote global peace and development through the strengthening of the world organisation.

As the report demonstrates, a high level of tension now exists in the governance of the global economy. While it has been generally acknowledged that markets offer opportunities for growth and development, there is still the caveat against excessive reliance on it. As many developing countries have discovered, the market is often blind to their particular circumstances and needs. Their concerns have raised serious questions about the fairness of the trading system leading to much public protest as was so dramatically expressed in Seattle and almost every city where the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organisation have tried to hold meetings. The message is clear: the international community must find a consensus on ways and means to ensure more democratic governance in international affairs so that the developing countries can have a greater say in shaping their future.

The gap between the richest and poorest countries has widened so dramatically during recent years that strong and urgent action must be taken to avoid a major human disaster. The UNDP 1999 Human Development Report has pointed out that this gap grew from 30:1 in 1960 to 44:1 in 1973 to 60:1 in 1990 and to 74:1 in 1999. The conclusion that must be drawn is that the current international economic system allows the rich countries to get richer while making poor countries rapidly poorer. Recent statistics coming out of the World Bank estimate that of a world population of some six billion people, nearly 1.3 billion people live on a dollar a day or less, 80 percent live in substandard housing, 70 percent do not know how to read and 50 percent suffer from malnutrition.

When we consider this frightening reality, the situation can only be deemed as perilous. For most developing countries such as my own, a scarcity of financial and human resources place serious constraints on the policy options that they are able to exercise. Despite the fact that many have embraced market-based reforms and democratic governance, they have had limited success in improving the socio-economic conditions of their people. Their efforts to undertake important reforms and to lift themselves up by their boot-straps have been rewarded by a denial of much needed assistance to sustain the progress achieved. The hostile international environment in which they find themselves not only frustrates their economic and social development, but also renders the strengthening of the democratic process extremely difficult.

Thus, while globalisation has benefited strong economies, it has weakened many developing countries and forced them into the backwaters of development. Severe economic and social dislocation has followed in many cases, accentuating the particular vulnerabilities of small developing countries, many of whom are often dependent on a single agriculture crop for the livelihood of their peoples. While the proponents of economic liberalisation contend that the market offers "a level playing field," they conveniently fail to realise that the players are not equally matched and that the rules of the game are stacked in favour of the strong. The weak can hardly compete and are eventually marginalised. Indeed it is a zero-sum game where both winners and losers are known in advance.

The majority of developing countries continues to be crippled by weak infrastructure such as roads, telecommunications, and other physical requirements and the inadequacy of skilled labour to take advantage of opportunities in the market. Moreover, they must face not only high production costs, but also low prices and inadequate access to markets. Trade liberalisation has also led to the rapid growth in imports by developing countries while their own exports remain sluggish and their trade deficit widens. In the process, governments lose much needed revenues from duties and taxes which hitherto made an appreciable contribution to the national budget.

Meanwhile, official development assistance has fallen to its lowest since the target of 0.7 per cent of the GNP was established by the United Nations in 1970. Only four countries-Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden-have reached the mark. On average, developed countries contribute less than a third of this target figure, with the richest countries contributing even less. Assistance is now apparently seen by some as both wasteful and wasted, a perception which may serve to explain the rapid decline. Yet, for many of the poor developing countries such assistance is indispensable if they are to improve their economic performance. To make matters worse, they find it difficult without the requisite technology and human resource base, to attract FDI which is increasingly concentrated in a small number of emerging economies.

The challenge, therefore, for the international community and for policy makers in the new millennium, is to redress these inequities in the global economy in a comprehensive and sustainable manner so as to ensure the smooth integration of developing countries, in particular the smaller economies, into the globalising world economy. Developing countries are not asking for charity-merely the opportunity to develop their potential and to take their rightful place in the international community. As they have said, they recognise the primary responsibility which they have for their own development. They ask only for assistance in creating a domestic environment that would enable them to participate fairly in the global economy.

A helpful measure would be to integrate transition periods into current economic models and make provisions for targeted assistance to small economies. Another would be to provide significant debt relief and debt cancellation as necessary, together with development assistance to boost the overall productive capability of developing countries. Developed countries could also assist in promoting regional integration as well as South-South cooperation to allow developing countries to benefit from the many complementarities which they possess. Equally indispensable is the provision of new and additional resources through the establishment of a Global Development Fund-that would help to bridge the gap between the developed and developing worlds.

Only an action-oriented programme-somewhat along the lines of the Marshall plan is necessary to achieve meaningful progress. Policies aimed merely at creating unsustainable social safety nets are hardly lasting solutions. The root causes of the structural and endemic problems of the developing countries which ultimately lead to global instability, must be addressed. To this end, we must find a way to direct aid and investment into building capital, both human and physical. We cannot speak seriously of closing the digital divide in an environment where many Governments are struggling to meet even the most basic needs of their populations and where degraded infrastructure does not support a "communications revolution."

In this context, we have noted the Secretary-General's initiative to forge a global compact between the United Nations, the private sector and nongovernmental organisations in an effort to maximise the development effort. Such a strategic alliance can indeed enhance cooperation on a wide array of global issues, including aid, trade and investment, the protection of the environment as well as satisfy urgent education, health and housing needs. To succeed, however, such a compact must be based on mutual understanding and respect through a clear definition of the respective roles of the partners. There must be common objectives and agendas as well as a clear definition of the roles of each partner.

Finally, Mr. President, the international community, and more particularly the developed North must recognise the close link which exists between freedom from want and freedom from fear-between development, peace and stability. At the national level we know that good governance must be practised to ensure that the population is protected from all forms of oppression and allowed to enjoy their inalienable human rights. Correspondingly, at the international level, the principles of the Charter as well as the laws which we, as civilised nations, have come to accept, must be respected to provide an environment conducive to development. In Chapter IV of his report, the Secretar-General remarks that "economic globalisation has largely eliminated the benefits of territorial acquisition while the destructiveness of modern warfare has increased its costs." This lesson must be learnt by states which, despite their professed commitment to the Charter, often resort to various forms of coercion in international relations. The United Nations ‑ and more particularly the Security Council should not-and indeed, must not tolerate such actions. All disputes must be resolved through peaceful means.

Mr. President,

While many of the proposals made by the distinguished Secretary-General in his report will undoubtedly help to contain the threats to peace and development in the twenty-first century, we rather fear that they will be insufficient to our requirements if they are pursued in piece-meal fashion without a more comprehensive and holistic framework. It is for this reason that Guyana has placed an item on this year's agenda entitled "A New Global Human Order." Time does not allow me to provide the details of the initiative. However, so that the concept might be more fully understood and widely supported, I have asked that along with copies of my statement, an explanatory memorandum outlining the aim of our proposal, be circulated. Very shortly, we will also make available a more extensive document that could serve as the basis for a discussion in the plenary. It is our hope that out of this consideration will emerge a resolution that will express the determination of the international community to find a consensus on the way forward to securing global peace and development.

The time is now opportune, I believe, for us to summon up our collective political will to devise a common and cogent strategy for managing the global agenda in the 21^st century. Should we fail to heed this imperative, we will continue to plough the sea and reap only disillusionment and despair. This Millennium Assembly affords us a singular opportunity to define the terms and conditions of a new global partnership. Let us not waste it in futile debate, but rather let us use it to give new hope to our peoples for a better future.

I thank you.