I

Address by

Honourable Lakshman Kadirgamar, PC

Minister of Foreign Affairs

and

Chairman of the Delegation of Sri Lanka

at

the Fifty-Fifth Session of the

United Nations General Assembly

New York

18 September 2000

Mr. President,

I convey to you the warmest felicitations of Sri Lanka on your election to the high office of President of the Fifty-Fifth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and I pledge to you Sri Lanka's fullest cooperation and support.

To the Foreign Minister of Namibia, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurrirab, I convey Sri Lanka's appreciation, and admiration, for the masterly manner in which he served as President of the Fifty-Fourth Session of the General Assembly.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Tuvalu to the membership of the United Nations.

Mr. President

Distinguished Delegates

Ladies and Gentlemen

The Millennium Summit is over. I fervently hope that its dreams and hopes for a better world will never fade from the hearts and minds of all mankind.

The President of Sri Lanka, Her Excellency Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, unable to attend the Summit, conveyed, through a Message I had the honour to read to the Summit, her hopes and her vision for the future of humanity. Her words were these: (I quote)

“Peace amongst 'All States’ and "Peace amongst' All Peoples within States' - so that all, and not only some, may - in safety without fear; in dignity without humiliation; in health without disease and starvation; in material and spiritual well-being - enjoy the wonders of life on this miracle we call the planet Earth". (unquote)

The President of Sri Lanka spoke, with emphasis, therefore, of the necessity of protecting and preserving, for the future, those minimal, and most fundamental, certainties, that the States members of this United Nations Organisation have been able to establish, in particular, that which was, and continues to be, its very foundation: the entity we know as the 'State'. Her words were these:

(quote)

"We are here in the General Assembly of the United Nations because it is here that 'Representatives' of 'Governments', of 'Peoples", of 'States', gather together under a Charter that assures States of their 'Sovereign equality', their 'political independence', their "territorial integrity'.

'States'. 'Peoples', 'Governments', 'Representatives', the Charter - these are the fundamentals of the United Nations system.

And that is as it should be.

States are the principal organisational entities into which the peoples of this planet have gathered.

The principal, over‑all organisational edifice of the international community is the 'inter-States system’.

For the entity we know as the State, there is no substitute.

If States weaken, so will this Organisation. If States are diminished, so will this Organisation be diminished.

Unquote

Thus, it was the plea of the President, on behalf of the State of Sri Lanka, that everything possible be done, by all, by this United Nations Organisation and all its 189 Member States, to protect and preserve, and not to decry or endeavour to erode, the stability and the well-being of the entity we know as the State, for whose 'sovereignty’, 'territorial integrity' and 'political independence' the Charter gave us its assurance.

I should before proceeding any further make it clear, Mr. President, - in view of recent statements on the part of speakers of obvious good-will and intention, but with whose fundamental premises I, fundamentally, differ - that those who assert the necessity of continued re-affirmation of the sovereignty of the State in terms of the Charter must not be regarded, I repeat must not be regarded, as in any way diminishing their commitment to the importance of universal adherence to human rights and all that is required for the dignity of the individual. Sri Lanka is deeply committed to the promotion and protection of the human rights of its own people and of all peoples everywhere.

There is, however, a substantial body of opinion, within which Sri Lanka includes itself, which is of the view that the way to proceed in the matter of human rights and the dignity of the individual, is properly through '"continued and close cooperation between all States". while respecting the sovereignty of each. The way of "'multilateralism" or "globalisation" which appear expressly or impliedly to overlook or diminish the sovereignty of States is not, to many of us in this hall, a commendable course. It is not a course whose worthiness in practice has as yet been established. Indeed, most endeavours to overlook or diminish the sovereignty of States have often had disastrous consequences. With that initial clarification and a reminder that human rights are for the observance not only of States, but non-State entities as well, I shall proceed with the remainder of my address.

The entities we know as States, we must surely always bear in mind, are national and international corporate entities of enormous complexity differing in so many respects from corporate entities of the private sector that are usually of single or limited purpose, and often authoritarian in management style; and, of course, differing as well from those innumerable entities, in their thousands now, to whom we refer, broadly and benignly, but somewhat simplistically, as ’civil society'.

If the management of a developed 'State' with more than adequate resources at its command be a complex undertaking, how much more complex would be the management of a developing State without such resources and such infrastructures. And then there are those developing States such as Sri Lanka with their multi-ethnic, multi-religious, postcolonial societies where the legacies of centuries of a colonial past take more than one generation to erase.

Mr. President, aside from the pressures inherent in the very nature and history of a State, let us not forget the additional external pressures a State is subject to - economic, social and political, legitimate and illegitimate, civil and uncivil, and often criminal - that the 'age of information' and its consequences have brought in their wake. They are external pressures that raise troubling uncertainties for many States, and for developing States, in particular, that are without the blessings of abundant resources and advanced infrastructures. They are uncertainties that strain the structures of States and could come close to threatening their very existence.

Where the processes of globalisation are exploited to their advantage by the irresponsible or the illegitimate or the criminal, one is reminded of the following passage in a report from the Secretariat received by this Assembly three years ago: (quote)

"Government authority and civil society are increasingly threatened by transnational networks of crime, narcotics, money-laundering and terrorism. Access by underworld groups to sophisticated information technologies and weaponry as well as to the various instrumentalities through which the global market economy functions are vastly increasing the potential power and influence of these groups, posing a threat to law and order and to legitimate economic and political institutions”.

Unquote

Where there is, of course, the use of internal armed force against a State, as in my country, the complexities within a State compound themselves many times over; and we know that the use of armed force against a State is the greatest threat of all to its preservation and well-being. And this is particularly so in democracies whose very openness makes them most vulnerable; and Sri Lanka is a democracy of long-standing and unwavering commitment to democratic fundamentals.

‘Peace amongst States', the primary purpose of the Charter, has to a large extent been achieved; if not in fact in every case, at least in general, and in terms of generally observed rules of international law, under and pursuant to Charter provisions that proscribe the use of armed force by one State against another State, except in self-defence or as authorised by the Security Council.

Yet, when we turn our attention to the subject of 'Peace within States, and the use of armed force against a State from within its own territory, we see an entirely different, and an often confusing and frustrating, picture. Each armed conflict is unique; each a creature of its own history; the nature of each determined by its own surroundings. There is no simplicity of circumstance, no uniformity in scenario, no easy solution. Internal armed conflicts come in many different forms.

The relatively clear-cut format of a United Nations response to inter-State armed conflicts - where, following a cessation of hostilities recorded in international agreement by representatives of warring States, the United Nations intervenes to monitor a truce and keep the peace - seems, for internal armed conflicts, inadequate or inapplicable.

Mr. President, the Charter does not prescribe how this Organisation should proceed, in cases of internal armed conflicts, except for the wise admonition in article 2, paragraph 7: 'Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State".

For the varieties, the complexities, the intricacies of internal armed conflicts this Organisation appears to be without the necessary structure, the knowledge, the expertise, the experience, the resources, and often, it would seem, without the necessary collective will.

To suggest that the United Nations intervene in internal armed conflicts across the board - made, on occasions, by persons of obvious goodwill but with little knowledge of local circumstances - is wishful thinking of the most simplistic kind, and incorrect in the extreme.

A proposition of such a nature ignores the fundamental premise, indeed the truism, articulated so impressively to the Millennium Summit by the Head of State of Algeria, President Bouteflika, in his forceful summation of the deliberations of Round-Table Four, that a democracy, offering to all its peoples the fundamental necessities of peaceful all-inclusive political processes, simply cannot tolerate armed defiance of the democratically expressed will of the populace of the State, which an armed terroristic attack on a democratic State so obviously constitutes.

And at a more practical level, from where would this Organisation, woefully under-financed for fulfillment of its development objectives, for which billions around this world expectantly await, obtain the further resources for such far-flung interventions in internal domestic crises.

Charter provisions and United Nations practice affirm that a State may act in individual or collective self-defence should there be an armed attack across its frontiers.

Yet against massive internal armed attack, the abilities of most States, or at least the abilities of most developing States, to react with equivalent armed force - in self-defence or in enforcement of the law of the land, or in the maintenance of law and order - are limited.

Traditional police services are inadequate in design, in training, in equipment, in experience. Few States have ready, and affordable, access to the necessary information or intelligence. Few States, struggling as they do, to proceed with the development of their economic, social and political infrastructures are able to maintain military infrastructures effective against such heavily armed guerilla-style onslaughts and the horrors of terror.

Such has been the experience of my country. Sri Lanka has had for many years an armed conflict within its territory that has complicated the lives of the entire population of the country. It is a conflict of an extraordinary nature. A very small group of armed fighters and supporters - numbering less than 15,000 persons in totality - schooled in and totally devoted to violence; rejecting the processes of peaceful society and participatory governance; achieving, through the practice of systematic terror, national and international notoriety; rebuffing all overtures for settlement of such problems as they may have through dialogue - continues in defiance of law and order in rebellion against the State.

A democratic State, because of its openness, its laws, traditions and practices, its commitment to tolerance and dissent, is especially vulnerable to the deployment of force against it by any group within its boundaries. An internal armed challenge to any State anywhere is a challenge to all States everywhere. Unless all States, democratic States in particular, agree to come to the aid of a State in such peril, democracy itself will be imperiled everywhere. Democracy will not survive.

Mr. President, when the security and integrity of one State is threatened by an armed group within it, surely - especially in these contemporary times when the 'cold-war' is far behind us - it behoves all other States to deny that armed group any encouragement, any succour, any safe haven.

A criminal organisation - whether involved in rebellion against a State or not - must depend for its sustenance outside the law. For its massive operations, and massive weaponry, massive collections of funds are continually required. As funds available for criminal activities within a State, especially a developing State, are inevitably small, and the monitoring of their collection and disbursement relatively simple, fund-collection for such activities is carried out abroad - through international criminal networks, of course - and also, as in all criminal enterprises, through knowing or unknowing front organisations or other entities that now proliferate in many forms, in many countries - often in the guise, sadly, of charitable groups or groups ostensibly concerned with human rights, ethnic, cultural or social matters.

Mr. President, the magnitude of the collections of funds from abroad, and the extensiveness of the reach of the international networks developed for the purpose, boggle the mind. Their receipts seem to exceed the receipts of many transnational conglomerates - and all free of tax. Revenues come, of course, from the customary illegal trade in drugs or arms or other merchandise including the smuggling of humans.

Yet there also exists a far more abundant and seemingly limitless reservoir of funds - namely, expatriates of similar ethnicity settled abroad. As the Western media has reported over the last few years from time to time, collections from expatriates abroad for the armed group, known as the Tamil Tigers, battling the Government of Sri Lanka are staggering in their magnitude: for example, US$ 400,000 a month from one country; US$ 600,000 a month from another; US$ 2.7 million a month from yet another, and large additional funds from expatriates in still other countries.

In 1988 an excellent study was published on 'Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money-Laundering'. It was a study commissioned, to experts in the field, by the United Nations Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention.

In order to implement adequately the provisions of the recently adopted Convention on the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, a study, of a similar nature, on the collection of external funds for massive continuous internal armed rebellion against a State, such as occurs in Sri Lanka, should surely be undertaken also by the appropriate United Nations bodies. It seems to me that such a study is especially necessary when the armed group battling a State is in blatant violation of human rights and humanitarian norms and standards (including those relating to children and children in armed conflict) that this Organisation and its Councils, Commissions, Committees and officials, including the Secretary-General and his Special Representatives, so correctly and so diligently espouse as the minimal contemporary requirements in human society.

I proposed such a study at the fourth Round Table of the Millennium Summit, and that proposal was endorsed by our Chairman, President Bouteflika of Algeria, in his summation to the General Assembly of the proceedings of our Round Table. I urge that favourable consideration be given to that proposal by the international community.

As the years go by, and the armed conflict fuelled by such massive funds from abroad continues within a State, paradoxically international perceptions seem to blur, not only amongst those in "civil society who are often uninformed, but even on the part of those in positions of international authority, within and outside this Organisation, who should know better. The existence of the internal armed conflict and the resulting casualties are bemourned, a cessation of hostilities is urged at any price - seeming inattention to the fundamental fact that it is the armed internal group that is the "aggressor' and it is the State that is the 'victim'.

Such a blurring of international perceptions in some quarters, as to what the crucial facts are, is distressing, and profoundly disappointing, to those, such as we in Sri Lanka, who have struggled and continue to struggle hard to preserve our democratic way of life and the richness of our multiethnic, multi-religious, culture in the pluralistic tolerance we were once so blessed to enjoy.

Mr. President, here, a word on the role of the media would not be out of place. Heavy responsibility surely lies on all engaged in the instantaneous dissemination of information, which is the defining characteristic of our times, to ensure that they are thoroughly informed on matters of which they speak.

If a can of merchandise of a well-known multi-national corporation is reported to have been found defective on the shelf of a supermarket, there is, in this age of instantaneous globalised information, an immediate fall in the value of holdings in that corporation at stock-exchanges across the world. Such is the awesome power, and the awesome responsibility, that is now vested in those who report - not only on defects in cans of merchandise but also on matters relating to the affairs of States.

And here we come again, to the great disparity that obtains, in this age of information technology, between developed States with sophisticated infrastructures, on the one hand, and on the other, developing States that still have so far to go. An incorrect statement about a State made here in New York, even here at the United Nations would, I would assume, be immediately clarified by a State possessed of advanced information technologies; but for States that are not so endowed, where do they go, where can they go? Is there a facility for immediate information correction or clarification within this house? I do not think so.

Mr. President, I hope the thoughts I have expressed today on the nature of the affairs of States, and of the affairs of developing States in the main, would show in some measure why a sympathetic rather than an inquisitorial style is by far the preferable in relation to the affairs of States, as in all human relationships.

At a more general level, I would like, before I leave this part of my address, to refer to two questions that are of relevance when considering the role of the State in United Nations affairs.

The first concerns the General Assembly, which, as we know, is the only principal organ of the United Nations where all Member States are represented; and the only principal organ of the United Nations whose terms of reference allow for consideration of any matter within the scope of the Charter.

Yet, there is the perception, amongst some, that the center of gravity in decision‑making on questions of major policy importance to the Organisation appears to have moved away from the General Assembly to an extent unknown in earlier years.

In this context Sri Lanka greatly welcomes the reaffirmation in paragraph 30 of the Millennium Declaration of "the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations", and the commitment of all nations "to enable the General Assembly to play that role effectively".

The practical manner in which the General Assembly could play that role would, of course, require very careful thought.

The ways in which 'civil society', and the innumerable entities that expression encompasses, could best contribute to the work of the United Nations ‑ in terms of data collection, research and analysis and expertise in a manner that does not prejudice the role of States in the affairs of the United Nations - will also require most careful examination. Such contributions should be made in a manner that is not partial or partisan, in favour of or against, but rather in a manner that befits an objective and neutral consultant.

If it were otherwise, namely, if they were partial or partisan, the interventions of 'civil-society' could needlessly disrupt well established processes for inter-governmental discourse that have formed over decades and now provide adequately for intergovernmental exchanges, as in United Nations conferences.

Moreover, though 'civil-society' within a national context could be, and is, well-accommodated into domestic political processes, the manner in which 'civil-society' could be internationally accommodated within United Nations processes still remains a puzzle.

Mr. President, these questions, and others that will certainly arise, refer to the role of the State in United Nations affairs, pursuant to the intensification of inter-changes across national frontiers. Let us hope that the processes of globalisation will not erode the integrity and well-being of the State in terms of the Charter whose purposes and principles must always be respected and preserved.

As in all human relationships, so also amongst States, the strong do better than the weak, the rich better than the poor, the developed better than the developing; and most of all when times are hard. The marked decline in official development assistance - and the failure of most of the strong, the rich, the developed to meet their 'ODA' pledges shows that for States there is no general safety-net.

If there is one message the Millennium Summit, and now this Millennium Assembly, makes loud and clear, it is that globalisation may be a reality for all but it is no panacea for all, certainly not for the developing world.

The benefits of globalisation have bypassed much of the developing world. The poorest amongst us, spanning the continents of Africa, Central America and Asia, have experienced increasing marginalisation. There is little opportunity for developing countries to be formative in the shaping of the world economy for the future - in the deliberations that really matter.

Thus, though we leave the past century and the past Millennium behind us - and celebrate the passing - the old, intractable economic and social tragedies that have been with us since the dawn of time still haunt over half of humanity: poverty, illiteracy, ill health, hunger, unemployment, the young, uncontrolled urbanisation, the growth of mega-cities.

And among these, "poverty-alleviation"' and " poverty-alleviation" remain for most of us in the developing world the highest and, in fact, the only, meaningful priority. Poverty degrades humanity and, in an era of abundance and conspicuous consumption, visible in real time across billions of television screens the world-over, undermines the very foundations necessary for the growth of humane societies and refined governance.

Mr. President, a "New Development Chapter for the Twenty-First Century", that would seek to reconcile the reasons for the obvious and often miraculous progress in the world economy with the continuing fundamental imperatives of development, needs to be formulated in deliberations at which the developing world is accorded an adequate "formative voice". And thus we turn to the United Nations and, in ultimate recourse as it were, to this General Assembly, under whose active supervisory authority there must be a revival of a comprehensive North-South development dialogue, a dialogue that otherwise seems to be fading away.

To tell the countless starving and helpless millions that a free global market-place will "show us the way" is, I am sorry, simply not enough.

And, believe me, it is not always the fault of "governance". "'Resource - over many generations, and its debilitating consequences on adequate infra-structural growth, must, in the view of many of us in positions of governmental management in the developing world, take much of the blame.

Mr. President, any formulation of a "'New Development Chapter for the Twenty-First Century" must provide for the catastrophic negative contingencies, be they "man-made" or otherwise, including such occurrences as the present surge in the price of oil to the highest levels in a decade that now place crushing burdens on the national economies of developing countries struggling desperately to contend with economic realities. They, like Sri Lanka, can only hope and pray that the oil producing countries who are certainly not insensitive to the plight of the developing world will find it possible in some way to relieve such pressures, in the very near future.

I should also observe at this juncture in my address that the seven States of South Asia (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) are deeply committed to the advancement of the economic and social well-being of their peoples, numbering now in the region of one and a quarter billion, not merely through national endeavour, but through regional and international cooperation. Sri Lanka as the current Chair of SAARC, is seeking to move along the programme of activities laid down at the Colombo Summit as best it can in difficult circumstances. The people of our region are deeply committed to the goals of SAARC. They continue to interact vigorously on a wide range of professional, cultural, educational and social activities notwithstanding the temporary set back to high level political involvement that SAARC has suffered at this time. We in SAARC are confident that it will not be long before our movement is again able to play its full role in the welfare of our peoples.

Mr. President, I have just returned to New York from the International Conference on War-Affected Children, organized by the Government of Canada and held at Winnipeg.

Mr. President, I cannot conclude my address to the General Assembly this year without making at least a brief reference to the abominable crimes that are being committed against young Tamil children in Sri Lanka by the rebel group known as the Tamil Tigers. They have been, and are, forcibly conscripting even 10 year- old children, boys and girls, for battle against the Sri Lankan Army. Some of these children have been programmed into suicide bombers. They are forced to wear cyanide capsules round their necks and to bite on them to evade capture. This wretched practice continues unabated.

In 1998 at the invitation of my Government the Secretary General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Mr. Olara Otunnu, visited Sri Lanka and met some of the Tamil Tiger leaders. They assured him that they would not recruit any person under the age of 17 and would not send into battle any person below 18. A few months ago the Special Representative stated that since his visit to Sri Lanka there have been continuous reports of the recruitment and use of children by the Tamil Tigers. The assurance they gave him has been totally dishonoured. In a poignant answer to a question by an interviewer, the Special Representative, said - (quote)

"Children who become soldiers lose their innocence. Part of the reason why the fighting groups will tend to reach out to children is because, of course, the adults may become disillusioned, they may be killed off, they may run away, so they reach the children who are less able to defend themselves. But there's a more cynical reason: that children, because they are innocent, can be moulded into the most unquestioning, ruthless tools of warfare, into suicide commandos, into committing the worst atrocities. In other situations, it is ideology -come fight for the homeland, come fight

for our ethnic group, come fight for a new society - that may appeal to families and to children. So there are many reasons which facilitate the abuse of children in this way." (unquote)

I thank the Special Representative for having had the courage to speak out on this important issue. To remain silent in the face of such criminality is to encourage and condone it. It is the duty of all of us who care about the children of the world to rally against the cruelty, brutality and the grievous harm cynically inflicted on them by groups such as the one that abuses them in Sri Lanka.

A few months ago the UNICEF Representative in Sri Lanka told journalists, and I thank him for his statement, that the situation for children in the areas held by the Tamil Tigers had worsened since they gave their assurance to the UN Special Representative. "'Some parents have reported to us that their children have been recruited" he said. "It is a serious problem" he added. He observed further that ""until they (the LTTE) announce to their own people that they have measures to prevent children below 17 years being recruited, we cannot take their promises seriously".

A respected and courageous. human rights group in Sri Lanka consisting mostly of Tamil teachers who used to teach at Jaffna University, have said in a recent report that since last May a fresh child recruitment campaign has been launched by the Tamil Tigers. According to their report children as young as 10 years are being forcibly conscripted, age being no consideration as long as the child was able to carry a gun. In recent months the international press has focused sharply on the plight of child soldiers in Sri Lanka.

A few days ago Sri Lanka deposited its instrument of ratification of the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Protocol has noted the inclusion in the Statute of the International Criminal Court of conscripting, enlisting or using children in combat as a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It holds non-State actors also accountable for such crimes and it calls upon State parties to cooperate in preventing and combating such crimes.

Accordingly, today, Mr. President, in this General Assembly of the United Nations, Sri Lanka calls upon all States to ratify this Protocol, and it calls upon the State parties on whose territory the LTTE has offices and front offices to take strong punitive action against such establishments, and to declare the LTTE a criminal organisation, as the LTTE sustains its criminal activity in respect of the use of child soldiers through funds generated on the territories of other State parties which are obliged to cooperate in terms of the Convention and the Protocol.

Mr. President, the Winnipeg Conference ended with an impassioned plea to the world to move urgently from words to deeds, to save the hundreds of thousands of children who are abused, maimed, displaced, traumatized and killed by war. In our cruel world if anything should stir the conscience of mankind it is surely the plight of these children. Let it not be said that yet again we have failed - failed to hear and heed the anguished cry of children in distress, children on whom adults have inflicted, and continue to inflict, unspeakable cruelty. No, Mr. President, politics cannot divide us on the issue of child soldiers. Massive funds are not required to save them. What is required is the will and commitment to act of those States which are in a position to act. The Winnipeg appeal is addressed to them. Let us all wholeheartedly support that appeal now so that when the International Conference on War-Affected Children is held, here in New York, next September, we could adopt measures that will finally ensure that children will forever be protected from the ravages of war.