Mr. President:
 
          First of all, I would like to join those that preceded me on the floor to congratulate you on your designation as President of the
last United Nations General Assembly within the XX Century. Peru is pleased that a representative of Finland, a country notoriously
committed to the objectives of the Organization, is directing the work of the 55th General Assembly. I feel sure that, under your
direction, we will achieve the mandates that are necessary to begin to pursue the vision that was developed by our Heads of State and
of Government in the recently concluded Millennium Summit.
 
          I would also like to take part in hailing and congratulating Tuvalu for its incorporation into the United Nations. This will
undoubtedly represent an important contribution to the different spheres of the work of the Organization.
 
          The Millennium Summit has evidenced the enormous challenges that lie ahead and the overwhelming need to forge a new
form of international order that will allow future generations to enjoy a world free from the threats of war, of poverty, of injustice and of
environmental deterioration and, at the same time, built in freedom with the participation of each of the great cultures that are a part of
humanity, without neither preferences nor prejudices.
 
          It is highly important that when we are about to conclude not just a century but also a millennium next December 31st, we stop
for a moment on our way to reflect on the future of international relations. Peru is certainly not a decisive country in the development of
these relations on a global level. Nevertheless, it would seem that one of the characteristics that appear at the end of the XX century and
that will certainly be emphasized in the XXI century is the basic role that all the countries of the world, whether large or small, have to
play in shaping the international order. And, in this sense, the perspective of a country such as Peru, that fully shares the Western
civilization yet at the same time has its own characteristics that are the legacy of ancient times, may be interesting in the performance
of the healthy exercise of approaching the subject from a different angle.
 
          Peru emphatically reiterates that the global order that must shape the conduct of the different international actors within the
century beginning on January 1st must be based on the essential principles of the United Nations Charter; which contrary to certain
opinions, that we believe to be mistaken, have not only not lost force but are more and more relevant for peaceful coexistence, collective
security and the effective possibility of development for all the specific groups that form part of this abstract element that we have
designated as humanity.
 
          I would like to specifically emphasize, Mr. President, the rights that refer to the sovereignty of States, to non?intervention in
their internal affairs and to juridical equality between the States. These basic principles, that were incorporated into the Charter in San
Francisco, have permitted the development of effective mechanisms of self?control and stabilization of the international system.
 
          This is why we must renew our commitment towards these rules of international public law, restoring the functionality that
belongs to them. Only thus can we ensure that the democratic values that prevail within contemporary society will apply and be enforced
within an international system whose emerging features appear to seek new forms of exclusion.
 
          The world of today is not the same world of 50 years ago. Change and globalization are constantly reshaping reality at a
growing rate and are attempting to impose upon us a new sense of commonality and even new morals and a new political ethic that
dogmatically and in a partisan manner define what is proper and improper.
 

          The unrestricted respect for the international juridical order therefore acquires an enormous significance since it is the only
basis that can illuminate the common path and restrict arbitrariness and subjectivity. This is also the best route and the most effective
mechanism for the protection of human rights and human freedom to its fullest extent, which are undoubtedly the requirements that no
member of the International Communicate may evade.
 
          But this new reality also imposes upon us a need for commitment to the principle of shared responsibility. The profound
interdependence posed by globalization also assumes a collective determination by all the members of the Community of the United
Nations to add their efforts and resources towards the solution of problems that have systemic effects or which are of an international
scope. I particularly refer to the achievement of a lasting economic growth within the developing countries; the elimination of poverty;
confronting the real threats to peace of an international scope; problems of public health and endemic illnesses that are mainly linked to
poverty; finding enough financing for development; the digital gap; migrations and the free movement of the labor factor; environmental
protection and conservation; the world drug problem beyond a purely military perspective; and, the scourge of terrorism and the
different forms of international crime, including money laundering, arms trafficking and international trafficking in people.
 
          It is highly important for Peru that each of these common problems be tackled within the framework of the United Nations and
that common, coherent and integral answers be achieved. We must be capable of finding effective solutions with sufficient political and
financial support. In this context, let me state our satisfaction and full support for the proposal by the Secretary General of the United
Nations to concentrate the attention of the International Community within the next years on the reduction of poverty so that by the year
2015 nearly 600 million people may be able to overcome their state of chronic poverty. In this same order of ideas, I want to emphasize
the imaginative and constructive proposal presented by the President of Peru, Mr. Alberto Fujimori, in the Millennium Summit,
concerning the use of sums of money illegally earned by captured drug traffickers, that have been deposited in bank accounts in rich
countries, to alleviate the foreign debt of the poorest countries and, in general, to utilize those funds in order to contribute to the fight
against poverty in the world.
 
          This is undoubtedly the main challenge in development matters. Many of our countries have undertaken firm economic
reforms and have opted for an open integration into the global economy, which has generated important competitive factors, but has
also had a negative impact on social matters and created greater external vulnerability, as was evidenced in the latest 1997?1998
financial crisis. The enormous expectations generated by the benefits of the globalization of the production process and the financial
and capital flows have been brought to a halt. That is why it is extremely urgent to resolve the wants of the neediest and ensure that the
globalization process will generate employment and be more inclusive, particularly within the developing countries.
 
          As is well known, poverty is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon and handling it will require an integral approach of
policy decisions of a domestic and global scope, as well as effective international cooperation. Any response by only one sector will
obviously be fragmented and insufficient.
 
          Thus, it is unlikely that social development and a reduction of poverty can be achieved without economic growth, which in its
turn is impossible to achieve without an adequate investment in physical capital and in human resources. But it is truly exceptional for
the developing countries to be able to generate internally sufficient resources to achieve sustained economic growth. We must therefore
resort to external savings, foreign investment and international cooperation.
 

          No discrepancy exists with regard to this causality. Nevertheless, the practices and some policies adopted by the most
advanced countries demonstrate that there is an enormous gap between words and reality. It is only thus that we can explain that
important economic sectors in which the developing countries have comparative and competitive advantages, such as the textile and
clothing sectors and the farming sector, continue to be excluded from free trade. It is precisely those sectors in which the generation of
jobs would cause the greatest impact in the struggle against poverty.
 
          This scenario coincides with the fact that the end of the cold war has led to a sharp drop in official development aid, both in
absolute as well as relative terms. Today, the aid that developing countries are receiving from the members of the Development
Assistance Committee of the OECD is, even in current terms, nearly 20 per cent less than what was achieved in 1992. However, the
application of conditions demanded that are based on generic formulas has increased and, almost without exception, do not respond to
specific social realities.
 
          Paradoxically, this coincides with a period in which mature economies such as those of the industrialized countries, are
growing at rates that are even higher than the overall rate for developing countries. Nevertheless, the Initiative for Highly Indebted Less
Advanced Countries has not yet been implemented to its fullest extent nor has the weak support given to other countries that face a
heavy burden in servicing their foreign debt been expanded.
 
          These and other considerations emphasize the great importance of the treatment of the subject of Financing for Development.
This assumes that not only the internal environment of developing countries will be examined but also that special attention will be paid to
reinforcing the multilateral commercial system through special and differentiated treatment that will contribute towards promoting
competitiveness, eliminating protectionism in the export markets of the developing countries, together with the expansion and
improvement of access to private investment and financial sources, a significant increase in official assistance for development, the
effective reduction of the stock and service burden of the foreign debt for developing countries whose conditions thus demand it and the
improvement of the international financing architecture.
 
          All of these are crucial areas that deserve the greatest attention from the international community, particularly from the
industrialized nations, to fully comply with the principle mandate of the United Nations of ensuring international peace and security and
achieving the full development of its Member States.
 
          That is why the Government of Peru trusts that the sensible calling of a Ministerial Meeting on Development Financing will
provide a favorable international framework of policies, as well as the indispensable support for the internal efforts that an important
number of developing countries are making. We will thus ensure that all the countries effectively participate in the globalization process,
that international goals be achieved within the social area and in the reduction of poverty, and that the growing marginalization within our
countries and among the States themselves can at least be halted.
 
          Social and economic development is not alien to the purpose of a true climate of international peace, security and
understanding. Peru, as a founding member of the United Nations, has taken part from the very beginning in the many tasks of the
organization, including its seeking of peace, Our actions have always been consistent with our firm commitment to the principles and
objectives contained within the Constitutional Charter of this Organization and with our specific belief in the value of multilateral action,
whether regional or global, for the solution of international problems.
 

          Peace is a basic concern for Peru; peace with our neighbors was a sine qua non condition for the juridical and economic
integration of South America and for Latin America in general, so that all of us could participate in better conditions in the remorseless
globalization process. Peru, therefore, believed it to be important both for our country as well as for the region to enter the XXI century
without the burden of the conflicts that we were bearing since the XIX century. In consequence, we made every effort to peacefully
conclude the dispute that we had with Ecuador for nearly 170 years. Similar good will in Ecuador, permitted us to find the final solution
of the problem and the forging of links of affection, solidarity and cooperation between these two brother countries. In the last century
we also had a war with Chile, whose wounds had not yet closed and whose sequel remained open. In this case, Peru also unhesitatingly
faced the task of ending these ghosts from the past and fully complying with the peace treaties between both nations; which was also
achieved.
 
          Our policy with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security was always based on the law and on
consensus achieved within the Organization. The next century will require a very solid juridical base and the creation of imaginative
consensus due to the existence of new forms of disputes and a more asymmetrical and complex world scene. This is the vision that
inspires our participation in the peacekeeping operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor and possibly also on the
border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, as well as our firm commitment to continue too cooperate in peace forces.
 
          In this sphere of the consolidation of international peace and security, we cannot ignore the important progress in the peace
process between Israel and Palestine. Peru encourages the development of diplomatic negotiations and the coming together that has
occurred as the sole route that will permit the achievement of a final statute and eliminate all forms of violence between the parties and is
pleased with the decision of the Government of Israel to comply with resolutions 425 and 426 that permitted the withdrawal from Lebanon
and will undoubtedly contribute to increase the climate of confidence and security within that area.
 
          I would also like to emphasize the unprecedented approach taken within this last year between the Republic of Korea and the
Democratic Republic of Korea. We hope that the dialogue and negotiation will allow both countries to achieve the major objectives that
they have set for themselves within a growing climate of confidence and stability.
 
          In the disarmament field, we now reassert that there is no reason to regard the indefinite maintenance of nuclear weapons as
justified and we are willing to continue working to achieve the elimination of the nuclear arsenals. That is why it is important to
emphasize the expectations that have arisen as a result of the Conference for the Review of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons in which a consensus was achieved between its Member States and whose final document includes the establishment
of commitments for the future by the Nuclear States. This progress can be considered positive and realistic.
 
          Nevertheless, there are still current problems to be faced within this subject such as the reassertion and reinforcement of
nuclear doctrines; the absence of specific measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war; the still complex entry into force of the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test?Ban Treaty; and, the lack of a commitment to unblock negotiations in the Disarmament Conference.
 
          As an example of the commitment assumed by Peru with regard to general and complete disarmament, our country hosted,
last December, the Annual Conference of Member States of the Agency for the Banning of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America
(OPANAL) and, we made a significant donation of crude oil to the Agency for the Development of Energy in the Korean Peninsula
(KEDO), seeking to avoid nuclear proliferation in that region. We also support the proposal by the Secretary General in his report to the
Millennium Summit with regard to the summoning of an International Conference to determine the ways to eliminate nuclear threats.
 
          Peru is also conscious of the importance of the International Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in all its aspects, that will be held next year.
 
          The indiscriminate manufacture of these weapons facilitates their illegal traffic and favors the level of violence of different
criminal organizations within countries. They represent a genuine threat to internal, sub?regional and regional security. Peru declares
its firm purpose of promoting and encouraging an international consensus in this matter, that for Latin America is closely linked to
situations concerning organized crime, subversion and drug traffic.
 
          In other disarmament areas, we emphasize the importance in continuing to work on the total banning of anti?personnel land
mines and we wait with hope for the results of the Second Meeting of the Member Countries of the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Use, Storage, Production and Transference of Antipersonnel Mines and their Destruction that is being held in Geneva and in which
Peru is a member of the Permanent Committee on Mine Removal.
 
          I would also like to emphasize the important role that the United Nations Regional Center for Peace, Disarmament and
Development performs and can continue to perform in Latin America and the Caribbean as a forum of reflection and for the promotion
of consensus, seeking to encourage more effective measures in all these fields. It will be necessary for this purpose that it be given
sufficient resources that will allow it to efficiently achieve its objectives. In this sense, I would like to mention that a seminar on all
aspects of international disarmament and security was held immediately after the OPANAL conference in Lima. Eminent speakers from
all parts of the world were there. The positions that were set forth in this event gained the decided support of the Subsecretary for
Disarmament of the United Nations. These will soon be published and, I believe, they will be an important contribution for the entire
international community.
 
          Peru acknowledges that the Security Council has an enormously important responsibility in the maintenance of international
peace, security and values; more especifically, the steps that it is taking to handle the recurrence of armed conflicts of an international
scope by reinforcing the strategy with regard to peace operations and the adoption of a preventive approach. Nevertheless, we believe
that it is vital to determine the conceptual scope and content of peacekeeping operations, using specific and consensual general
principles that acknowledge the new nature of international disputes, but that do not violate the basic principles of the Charter of the
organization, referred to state sovereignty and non intervention in internal affairs.
 
          In this respect, we hail the appearance of the Report from the Independent panel chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, that
together with the reports on the cases of Rwanda and Srebrenica and, particularly, that of the Special Committee for Peacekeeping
Operations of the Organization, will permit a comprehensive and integral discussion on a broader basis that will include all Member
States and that will strengthen and reinforce this important tool for peace.
 
          We cannot forget that an effective way of expressing support from all Member States is to comply with the common obligation
of providing the organization with suitable financial resources, according to the real capacity to pay of each State. For this purpose, the
review and adjustment of the scale of assessments for the apportionment of expenses of the United Nations and, that corresponding to
peacekeeping operations is a necessity within this process of modernization and updating of the organization, that must be performed
with honesty and spirit of cooperation.
 
          In this order of ideas, the imposition of new concepts and of experimentation in the drafting of mandates for peacekeeping
operations, together with the exclusion de facto or de jure from decision taking of the great majority of the members of the Organization,
emphasize the imperious need to democratize the decision taking process within the United Nations and to revalue the role of the
General Assembly.
 
          Peru therefore reasserts the need to grant greater openness and equitative representation of Member States in the Security
Council and encourages all the efforts that seek to reshape the exercise of the veto. It also reasserts the role of the General Assembly,
the maximum expression of the juridical equality of the States, based on the following guidelines:
 
             1. Strengthening of the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, the most representative and democratic body of the system,
   to ensure that it recovers its decisive place in the general direction of the organization for the future, with capacity for action and
   decision in subjects that are its responsibility, reasserting its direct and legitimate jurisdiction.
 
             2. Reinforcement of its capacity for consideration and recommendation in the maintenance of international peace and
   security, in direct compliance with provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
 
             3.     Assertion of its nature as a forum for debate and negotiation.
 
             4. Promotion of a concept of international security based on international law, mutual confidence and respect, the
   sovereign equality of States and strengthened cooperation.
 
             5.     Unlimited respect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
 
   We also believe that the Secretariat of the United Nations must respond to the collective needs and demands of all member States
   that act from a consensual basis as central actors of the organization and international relations.
 
          In sum, we must rescue the centrality of the General Assembly, whose duties and responsibilities cannot be eroded or
restricted in any way but must be reinforced. The defense of the jurisdiction of this body is a genuine reflection of everything that a
democratic system represents: free elections, honesty, tolerance, open dialogue, participation in decision taking and accountability.
 
          I feel sure that with the necessary political will, we can conciliate the different interests and adopt a new world consensus to
successfully solve the multiple demands of the development and security of the human being, which includes a juridical framework that
would represent a clear rejection by the international community of the scourge of terrorism in all its forms and expressions, as well as
regulatory frameworks for the environment.
 
          Finally, in accordance with the position of my country that seeks to achieve an international juridical basis that is more
comprehensive and, accepting the request of the Secretary General of the organization, I have the privilege of announcing that during
this Period of Sessions of the General Assembly, Peru will adhere to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, one of the pillars of
current international law. Likewise, Peru will adhere to the International Agreement for the Repression of the Financing of Terrorism.
And, once the internal process is concluded, my country will also adhere to the International Agreement Against Hostage Seizures, and
the International Agreement for the Repression of Terrorist Attacks Committed with Bombs.
 

          There are undoubtedly many and very difficult challenges that we must face during the next century. This is the time of
technological development and wealth but also the time of struggle against poverty. This is the time of globalization but also the time of
the respectful recognition of cultural diversity which is a wealth as important, or more so, than biological diversity. This is the time of the
greatest use of natural resources by man but also the time of the conservation of nature. This is the time of the universal spreading of
democracy but also the time of democratic respect for the different ways in which democracy is lived.
 
          Humanity has reached some basic consensus at this stage of its development. All the peoples of the world share certain
values and certain goals, such as freedom, democracy, equality before the law, respect for human rights, the need to eliminate poverty,
the development of creativity, the need for man to always surpass itself. This has been the contribution of modernity, the contribution of
the latest centuries consolidated in the XX century. But it is also true that humanity is not made up ?fortunately? of a single culture, that
these values should find their own realization through different mentalities, in different latitudes, at different periods of the history of each
people. That is why post?modernity, that world of the next century, must know how to conserve and emphasize the values that are the
legacy of modernity and carry forward its goals as much as possible. But it must also acknowledge diversity; it has now to resolve
dynamically the dilemma between unity and multiplicity.
 
          Possibly the most complex of all these challenges, the most difficult of all the coincidentiae oppositorum that the XXI century
will demand is to build an international system based on a genuine democracy. And by this I wish to indicate a democracy that does not
consist of imposing a political form in the image and similar to a specific system that is promoted as a model, a democracy that is not
built on the basis of a mere check list of institutions that have been taken out from a specific democratic experience and made into
mandatory universal guidelines. Democracy practices diversity and tolerance. It is a recognition that with regard to each subject ?
including the idea of democracy itself ? there can be different interpretations and none of them is entitled to ban the others. The task
that awaits us, then, during the next century is to spread and promote democracy but, above all, further examine its own meaning to
avoid contradictions which would lead to its own destruction.
 
          Therefore, how can we spread democracy without endangering democracy itself? On the other side, how do we save
diversity and particularity without ending up with an outdated nationalism? These are the major problems of our time. They are the major
dilemmas that will have to be resolved within the XXI century.
 
          Any idea of a crusade, even in the name of democracy, is undemocratic because it is intolerant. And I would almost dare to
say that any principle of social organization that seeks to impose itself universally has an undemocratic base. Thus, paradoxically, the
missionary enthusiasm for democracy ends by affecting the nature of democracy itself.
 
          Democracy, in fact, implies a delicate and fragile balance between the universal and the singular. Singularity should not be
sacrificed on the deified altar of the universality. Singularity should not be dissolved within a claimed universality and the singular should
even less be confused with the universal, assigning an absolute value to what is no more than the historic expression of a culture and of
a time. The attempts to apply on an international scale domestic policies and local interpretations of values, have always failed. In the
second half of the XX century, we witnessed the spectacular collapse of Soviet communism that claimed to be the political doctrine of
the future, with which, following Hegel, we would see the end of politics and therefore of history and enter into a sort of rebuilt earthly
paradise. The claimed communist universality saw the birth within itself of particularities and differences. It afterwards had to face other
doctrines and world visions that were alien to its principles and values; and against all that communism expected, these different
perspectives did not vanish when faced with the presumed Marxist truth but to the contrary, they won the ideological battle and made
communism and Soviet Russia disappear. I am convinced that the same will happen with any doctrine, whatever its perspective and the
values that support it, that claims to lead the world into the end of history.
 
          This forces us to rethink certain subjects that are being all too easily accepted in a somewhat hasty and, to my mind,
inconsistent manner. There is a certain scorn towards the idea of sovereignty, towards the idea of the cultural identity of the peoples,
under the pretext of the construction of the universal society. Nevertheless, I believe that these concepts, even though they will need to
be transformed and adapted to a new globalizing view, they will continue to be held in the world of the future, if we favour a genuinely
democratic way of thinking, in which freedom can also express itself under the form of cultural and ideological differences, these ideas.
There is no doubt that there is a crisis of the Nation?State, because this apparently essential identification between the state as the
political and juridical organization of society, and the nation as a cultural organization, is false: multinational states do exist. The solution
in these cases does not lie in abandoning the concept of state and sovereignty to be absorbed within one of the globalizing forms of a
supranational community, but in achieving within the state an acknowledgment and complex integration of multiculturality. It is necessary
to articulate diversity instead of imposing homogeneity that will always be felt as a straightjacket.
 
          The new international order cannot be built by a single nation, a single culture or a single ideology but by the interaction of
the different points of view that make up humanity. And, from a genuinely democratic and liberal view point, we must avoid the
temptation of this new dogmatism, that is perversely subtle and with a powerful imperial vocation, which is the myth of "political
correctness "
 
          From this point Of view, to build a new international order for the XXI century does not mean to resolve a mathematical
equation nor to scientifically build a model and apply it in a general manner to all the countries of the world in the vain attempt to create
a universal international society. Reality sweeps away all abstractions with the wealth of its multiple points of view. Reality is always
dynamic, effervescent. It is always undergoing permanent transformation thanks to the freedom that is the defining element of the
human being. Therefore, politics, whether domestic or international, is an art not a science, and a domestic or international order has to
be the result of a complex interaction between different and even opposed elements, just like a work of art. To compose this work of art
which will be the new international order implies not the destruction of what is different or opposite but to articulate it within what is
general. It implies to combine unity with diversity, freedom with order. To say it in Nietzschean terms, we have to combine the Apollonian
with the Dionysian. If we build a purely Apollonian society, it will then become a new form of dogmatism and cultural dictatorship, even if
it paradoxically seeks the establishment of democracy. The building of a purely Dionysian society is to fall into chaos and, therefore,
destroy the social pact.
 
          The society of the future must be capable of living within diversity and expressing different points of view, different world
visions and different interpretations of democracy itself in order to manage the establishment of an organization of humanity that will
tend not to create a single and homogenous international society but an articulation of the wealth of social and cultural diversity seeking
peaceful coexistence and reciprocal cooperation without impositions or conditions.
 
Thank you.