By
HIS EXCELLENCY
SULE LAMIDO
MINISTER
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
AND
CHAIRMAN OF THE G-77
at the Millennium
Assembly
NEW YORK
19
SEPTEMBER, 2000
Mr. President,
Please
allow me to share with you the joy of your election to this august body as the
President of the 55th Session of the General Assembly. Be rest assured of Nigeria's
support and cooperation.
May I also
in the same vein express same sentiment on behalf of the G77.
To your predecessor
and my colleague, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab of Namibia, Nigeria and the Group of
77 wish to express our pride and appreciation over the most
May I also
commend the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for the manner he has piloted
and continues to manage the affairs of the United Nations. I will also like
to thank him for his Millennium Report which has identified some of the pressing
problems and challenges facing mankind.
Mr.
President,
In the
last few weeks here at the UN, a lot of reflections and deep thinking have
taken place among world leaders, all in an attempt to more coherently define
the future.
The end of
one Millennium and the beginning of another warrants all these efforts at such
a purposive definition.
Fifty five
years ago, the UN was formed as a global bulwark against armed conflict on a
world scale such as the second world war. Over the years, its mandate of preserving
international security has broadened from strictly preventing such armed
conflict to also that of fundamental issues of socio-economic security for
humanity
For
example, in many of the developing countries, the United Nations manifests its
potentials more in UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO, etc. than in Security Council
resolutions, comparatively speaking.
It is from
the activities of these UN agencies that the under-privileged sections of the
poor countries benefit directly and upon which these same countries such as
those
in Africa have come to imbibe the
idealism that the UN can harmonize the totality of human progress to the benefit
of all stake holders.
To a great extent this idealism has not been misplaced. In fact, at no other time is the possibility of a global familyhood most real than now. The thoughts of this prospect must have, I am sure, been very exciting to many of us and being a basis for hailing the UN system for its own role and contributions to these achievements.
But as my President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo aptly observed here less than two weeks ago, “ though the world has generally become a safer place to live in, thanks to the contributions of the United Nations, we must all feel deeply worried that the message of hope which this organization has been spreading is yet to reach the millions of mankind for whom it is intended. For the vast majority of our peoples, grinding poverty has remained a fact of their everyday existence”.
Mr. President,
This reality
of a grinding poverty has raised considerable apprehension in some Member
States of the UN about their fate in the new Millennium. There is a
clear basis for this apprehension given that the past Millennium was, for
most of these countries, characterized by extreme poverty, heavy indebtedness,
wars of attrition and the resultant mass ordeal and anguish both for its immediate
and distant victims, absolute vulnerability to epidemics (cholera, malaria,
and typhoid) the rage of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the scourge of natural disasters,
serious technological backwardness and a digital divide between it and the
others, profound economic decline and infrastructural decay.
In the
last one decade in particular, whatever hopes raised by some initiatives aimed
at mitigating the African, and third world underdevelopment have dwindled to
the very Iast, as the world emerged from the cold war into a more problematic
concept called Globalization.
The Globes
which is the symbol or logo of the United Nations depicts Humanity. From the
word globe has been derived the phenomenon called Globalization which explicitly
connotes a world without (national) borders with particular reference to commerce.
That is humanity as one huge market!
Apart from
thus unfortunately associating the noble and emotive “word” Humanity with the
materialism of commerce and the market, globalization automatically raises
other questions for three quarters of humanity outside the orbit of industrial
competence.
For, in a
global economy, all actors in that economy should also be stake-holders. But
what stakes does Africa have in a global economy?
Economically,
it is heavily indebted, some of its countries committing up to 55 percent of
gross earnings to debt servicing and payment. What can the little that is left
do for domestic economy.
What does
an economy which produces virtually nothing in industrial terms have to offer,
much less compete in a global economy?
What is the
income level of the average Africans relative to and those of his¡her counterparts
in many countries of the West vis a vis the capacity to patronize the goods
and services which globalization offers?
How does
globalization facilitate democratic consolidation. How can the core values of
liberal democracy such as rule of law, preservation of human rights, good
governance, be sustained by a government that lacks the resources to
competently provide a minimum of social service delivery and thus sustain
legitimacy and regime credibility?
In what ways would a typical regime
in Africa be able to contribute its quota to democratic consolidation with the
debt over-hang, the exchange and interest rate practices in the international
financial architecture, the prices
offered for raw materials, relative to the prices of industrial goods and
services, the limited trade access and
the
conditionalities tied to loans and Aid?
Mr. President,
As a responsible member of the international
community, and as the Chair of the G-77, Nigeria is obliged to draw attention
to the context of our present situation. For what is clear to me now is that
the dream of a global family cannot be attained if the present architecture
of power and reward system in the world continues. The dialogue of OAU, NAM
and G-77 with G-8 countries has so far shown that a great deal can be achieved
from that approach to the issues in question.
As
President Obasanjo again instructively recognized in a separate speech, it is
imperative for the World to seize this moment to begin to get the future right;
since such a solemn moment in the history of mankind such as the recent
Millennium Summit may not always present itself. We are talking of dialogue
that takes the issues on board in a holistic manner as opposed to the current
practice of abstracting one mere manifestation of the system or the other. For
example, the case of wars of attrition and the idea of international
humanitarian intervention.
The debate so far has brought to the
fore the problem of the contradiction between sovereignty and intervention. Of
course, nation States, even those on the verge of evaporation would be
sensitive to the word INTERVENTION but, more than that, discussions on the
issue has brought out the one-dimensional nature of the treatment of some
issues or problems in terms of what we include or exclude in the
definition.
In this particular case, the debate so far has concentrated on war situations
or armed conflicts featuring massive loss of lives.
Now, what
of other situations where loss of lives are also of serious magnitude but not
as a result of a war situation or armed conflict?
What of
the silent "genocide” occasioned by HIV/AIDS pandemic, epidemics and
natural disasters such as famine, drought, flood, etc?
What about
the situation which arises from where sanctions lead to deaths on a serious
scale?
All these
should find a place in a proper and systematic discussion of humanitarian
intervention aimed at succor to those who may be trapped in tragedies other
than war situations.
Similarly,
is there no other way by which the world can arrest proliferation of small
arms and light weapons in Africa and other parts of the South? Certainly,
the world knows about the nature and type of weapons used in the prosecution
of these wars, where they are manufactured and by whom, the processes by which
they are traded and acquired and the key facilitators of these processes including
national governments and arms merchants. What if the search for solution focuses
on these areas?
Mr.
President,
These and
many other weighty global issues were discussed at the first-ever South Summit
held in Havana last April. That Summit was a defining moment for the Group
of 77 countries, which pondered on the challenges of the twenty-first century.
In Havana, the South resolved to forge a new and meaningful partnership with
the Industrialized Nations. We demanded equal partnership in decision-making
that affects the whole of humanity. That was the message the leaders of the
South took to G-8 Summit in Okinawa. The outcome of that consultation vividly
demonstrates that meaningful partnership is a must for the new century. Certainly,
the interest of mankind compels a more inclusive participation of all segments
of our global community.
Thank you.