GA/9085

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY PRESIDENT OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY DIOGO FREITAS DO AMARAL (PORTUGAL)

MODERATOR: I have the honour and privilege to introduce the President of the General Assembly, Diogo Freitas do Amaral (Portugal), who, as you know, will be serving until tomorrow afternoon, when the new Assembly elects a new President. I wanted to say that it was really a great pleasure to work with Professor Freitas do Amaral, a diplomat, professor and outstanding, distinguished human being with whom we had the great pleasure of working practically and professionally; and we had one of our very capable colleagues working with him. Of course, we wish him all the best in his new endeavours. Without any further delay, I will ask the President of the General Assembly to make a statement.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I would like to thank everyone who is here today for their presence. I would also express thanks for the very kind words of Mr. Samir Sanbar, and would like to say that it was a pleasure for me to work as closely as possible with the press and the media here during this session, which will end tomorrow. I will make a very brief statement and then answer your questions.

I think this was a very remarkable session -- the fiftieth session of the General Assembly -- first of all, because it was the fiftieth-anniversary session. I think it is a remarkable occasion that we should have celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations this year. I think that the special commemorative meeting in October was a very important one. It was not only words and champagne; it was really a set of substantive statements made by almost all heads of State or heads of government, committing themselves, and their governments and their peoples to the United Nations and its ideals. I think this was a very important moment.

Another very important moment was, of course, last week, the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which, for many years, was an aspiration of almost all the countries of the world and which will be, when ratified, a gift of the present generation to future generations.

Another important event for me was my chairmanship of the different working groups on the reform of the United Nations. We have done very good work, I think -- hard work -- during the whole year. We had more than 100 meetings of the different working groups, and a lot of work has been done, although not finished.

But I think that we delivered to the fifty-first session well-advanced work from almost all the working groups. In case of at least three of the working groups -- those on the agenda for peace, the agenda for development and the strengthening of the United Nations system -- more than 50 per cent of the work has been done. I am convinced that, with some good efforts from January to April, those working groups will be able to finalize their work and present their final recommendations to the plenary of the General Assembly.

- 2 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

Two working groups have been much more difficult, although we have been able to clarify the field and present clearer options to the fifty-first session. Those two groups are the working group on the financial situation of the United Nations and the working group on the reform of the Security Council. They are, of course, dealing with very difficult questions: questions where national interests conflict, questions where some Member countries -- namely, the permanent members of the Security Council -- have not yet completely stated their minds. Progress has not been easy to obtain. As I said, clarifications were obtained and there is now a better picture of the efforts that must be made in the fifty-first session.

So, on the whole, I think that we have progressed a lot; delegations have engaged in very clear and hard work about reform. We have gained momentum for reform. The only thing I hope is that momentum will not be lost during the fifty-first session, so that we can conclude the effort that has been made during this year.

As I said, I think that on the major part of the reform issues we have done more than 50 per cent of the work. There is still some way to go, but I am happy with the work that has been done and grateful to all delegations and to the vice-chairmen of the different working groups for their remarkable contributions to this work on United Nations reform.

I am waiting for your questions.

QUESTION: You pointed at the most important thing: the comprehensive test-ban Treaty. But there are a lot of ifs. Are we going to have a real treaty in force? Some countries may not sign. And the second question is, you speak of reform, but the General Assembly still has a huge amount of agenda items that are never completed. For the last 17 years, I have seen most of the same items discussed again and again and again. Why can nothing be done in that respect?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, it is true that we have some doubts as to whether some countries will sign. Perhaps, we still have certainty that some will not sign. But the Treaty is there. It was adopted. It exists. It will be open for signature in another two weeks. Many countries will sign. Pressure will grow towards signature and ratification, and I think that in some years' time this will prove to be an effective treaty. We have to wait a little bit. We have to make a lot of diplomatic efforts with the countries which are still hesitating. But after all, I would not say, "at the end of the day", but at the end of the period I think that we will have the Treaty.

On the other question. Some efforts have been made and some efforts will be made to reduce the number of items included in the agenda of the General Assembly, but some items are there because the problems exist in the world, and it will take time to solve them. And some problems will never end.

- 3 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

For example, the fight against terrorism. That item will probably always exist in the agenda of the United Nations because, unfortunately, it is not possible to stop terrorism one year and say it will never happen again.

Problems regarding the eradication of poverty: it will take us a long time to take that issue off the agenda of the United Nations. I do not regard as negative the fact that some items are included year after year in the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. Rather, I see that as a positive demonstration of the interest that the General Assembly takes in some permanent issues.

QUESTION: I should like to refer to the question of the enlargement of the Security Council. When you speak to diplomats of the permanent member countries, they say that it is not possible to have an agreement because Pakistan is opposed to India, Mexico or Argentina are opposed to Brazil, Italy is opposed to Germany. But you seem to say that the permanent members also have a responsibility. Do you feel that they bear the major part of the responsibility in the deadlock?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think they bear the major part, but I think that they can contribute decisively to help to solve the problem because, until now, we have not heard complete statements by the permanent five on their opinions about the enlargement of the Security Council. Some have expressed some thoughts -- not their entire thoughts -- and some have said nothing. And so, during the course of the year, I called the permanent representatives of the five permanent members in separate meetings and I told them that I think that it would make a positive contribution to solving the problem if they stated their minds clearly and completely. I am not saying that if they do so all problems will be solved. That is not the case. But if they do so, I think it will help other countries to come up with their positions and to make up their minds.

QUESTION: What about the idea you raised several months ago that there would be a resolution concerning the enlargement, but without naming any country. What happened to that initiative?

THE PRESIDENT: That has not yet been endorsed by the working group, but it is there as an idea and I still hope that will be the way to solve the most difficult part of the problem.

QUESTION: You say that reform has moved forward, but there seem to be fundamental differences among key States about the role of the United Nations, whether in security affairs or in development, or in fact its role in their perspective of what it will do in the world. Could you assess what progress has been made on this fundamental question of the overall role of the United Nations?

- 4 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

THE PRESIDENT: You are right when you say there are still differences, perhaps more differences in public opinion than in government. Among governments, I think that everybody agrees that the two main, fundamental purposes of the United Nations should continue to be peace and development. Around this, I think that a large consensus can be created; indeed, two of the working groups -- on an agenda for development and on an agenda for peace -- were dealing with that. Once we have defined clearly our main objectives in matters of peace and in matters of development, I think that the major part of consensus will have been reached.

Of course, there can still be some differences on how to contribute to peace, how to contribute to development, but countries have worked hard and I am glad to say that precisely those two working groups -- on an agenda for peace and on an agenda for development -- are those that are nearer a final draft resolution in their work. This means something.

QUESTION: Not in terms of working groups' texts, because, as you know, the development group has actually gone backwards over the summer because of the Group of 77's amendments. That is why I did not phrase it in terms of the working groups.

In your assessment, has there been any progress in resolving the profound differences that continue to exist among governments on the role of the United Nations?

THE PRESIDENT: I am informed that more than 50 per cent of the draft reports of those working groups has been agreed, which means that governments are agreeing on a lot of important things. They have not yet agreed on all things; some progress is still necessary. But they have already agreed on more than 50 per cent of the items, which is a signal that there is agreement among governments. There is substantial agreement.

QUESTION: With regard to the enlargement of the Security Council, do you think that an agreement is possible before the end of the century?

THE PRESIDENT: I will tell you my personal opinion. I think that either agreement will exist in the next two years or it will not exist until the end of the century.

QUESTION: On the reform of the Security Council, could you elaborate upon the progress that the working group achieved this year specifically?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, very great progress has been made on matters related to the working methods and transparency of the Security Council.

- 5 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

Secondly, on the enlargement question, I think that two major points of progress have been made. First, the proposal that the enlargement should consist in the entry into permanent membership of Japan and Germany alone has been dropped. Nobody is suggesting any longer that the enlargement can consist only of the entry of Germany and Japan. This is something that was agreed upon this year.

Further, besides the proposition of two plus three -- two from the North and three from the South -- and the Italian proposal, we have now a third proposal that emerged during this fiftieth session, which I consider to be a very interesting one and deserving of consideration during the fifty-first session. This is the so-called permanent rotating membership. The idea is that, instead of having five new permanent members, you should have five new permanent seats, one for each regional group. Member countries would rotate within their own group. Instead of permanent members, one would have permanent seats for rotating members of each one of the five groups.

This was a new idea that emerged; it was first presented some two years ago, I think, by the Organization of African Unity, and it was presented again this year by many more countries. It is receiving growing support.

So, now we have three propositions: the two plus three, permanent members, the Italian proposal and this permanent rotating system.

QUESTION: Could you elaborate a bit on the Italian proposal?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Italian proposal, I think, is known by every one of you. It is the proposal of quasi-permanent members. We should have three categories of members: the permanent members, the quasi-permanent members and the non-permanent members -- the quasi-permanent members being chosen from among those countries who contribute more in terms of financial contributions and troop contributions to the United Nations.

So, we now have three proposals which are very different from one another and which can be freely and openly discussed during the fifty-first session.

There is also wide agreement in the working group that should there be no enlargement in permanent membership, one should nevertheless go ahead with some degree of enlargement in non-permanent membership. This is also widely agreed in the working group.

QUESTION: [inaudible] ... issues widely discussed in Congress as to the upcoming General Assembly and also the most controversial ones on the agenda?

THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to the fiftieth session?

- 6 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

QUESTION: No, the ...

THE PRESIDENT: The fifty-first. Well, I happen not to know the provisional agenda of the fifty-first session, so I don't know exactly what will happen on the agenda of the fifty-first. About the working groups, I would say that the two major more difficult questions will be the financial crisis and the Security Council.

As regards the Security Council, I think that an important contribution, as I said, should be made by the permanent five members of the Council because, after all, no reform can be made if they veto it. So it is important for the other members to know what they think about that.

On the financial crisis, I think that the major contribution should come from the United States, and I very much hope that after the elections, when the new Administration is inaugurated beginning in January, serious discussions will take place between the Administration and Congress in Washington, and between the Administration and the United Nations leadership in New York, so that we can really have some positive contribution on the part of the United States.

QUESTION: There are government spokespersons here at the United Nations who feel that in a sense having the permanent five stay is going to be counterproductive by the year 2000, which was brought up by ... [inaudible] ... First of all, what is going to happen in 2000, that the United Nations in effect is no longer representative of world Powers, and, therefore, will gradually be phased out after 2000 since it cannot reform, as you have just said, because of the veto.

THE PRESIDENT : Well, I don't think I agree with that view. I think that we must have change. We must have enlargement of the Security Council. It has already been agreed by unanimity that the Security Council should be enlarged. There is at least agreement on that. But, of course, one needs to have consensus -- or at least a two-thirds majority. And that two-thirds majority must include the positive votes of the P-5.

So, you will get no reform against the P-5 -- and that is why I would like to see the P-5 more interested in reform, more included in the process of reform. This year, they have not been as much engaged in the reform process as I would like to have seen. So, I very much hope that in the next year they will engage themselves much more and they will consider it as a high priority to engage themselves in the process of reform.

But if this is not achieved until the year 2000, I don't think it will mean the end of the United Nations. The United Nations is necessary. The United Nations is here to stay.

- 7 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

QUESTION: With regard to the financial crisis, do you feel that no matter which party wins, the crisis will be solved in January? Does it matter?

THE PRESIDENT: I very much hope that as from January 1997 the financial crisis will begin to be solved. I am not sure that it will be, but I very much hope that it will be. If it is not, I can see big trouble coming over the United Nations. I very much hope that it will begin to be solved. We do not need to solve everything in two or three months, but we must begin to see clear signals that the financial crisis is being resolved -- which means, to be very frank and candid, that by the first semester of 1997 we need to see the United States begin to pay its arrears. I cannot be more frank and clear than that.

QUESTION: The working group on the financial situation adopted its report in June. The report made no specific recommendations. I wonder why they gave up so early. What difficulties did they have?

THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty was that this is an election year in the United States, and the American delegation was not ready to compromise this year. We must wait until next year.

QUESTION: Who should be the next Secretary-General of the United Nations?

THE PRESIDENT: I think you would agree that it is not for me to say. First, because I will not be President of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly, and, secondly, because it will not be for the President of the fifty-first session to indicate the new Secretary-General. It will be for the General Assembly itself to elect the new Secretary-General.

QUESTION: It is because you will not be there that it would be easier for you to say who you think it should be.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that I should not take sides on that question. Let the proper organs of the United Nations decide, according to the United Nations Charter, who the next Secretary-General will be.

QUESTION: Do you have any message for your successor?

THE PRESIDENT: I have had a very pleasant working lunch with him and his team and my office. We have exchanged a lot of information. I think I have given him all the information he needed to receive from me. It was a very pleasant and positive working meeting, but, of course, he needs no lesson from me. He is a very able person and I think he will be a very good President.

- 8 - Press Release GA/9085 16 September 1996

QUESTION: My network has had a lot of questions from viewers, including one from a Roger Chu of the Ivory Coast. He would like to know if it is a benefit for any country to be in charge of the General Assembly each year. How did your country, Portugal, benefit? Does a country benefit from one of its citizens being the President of the General Assembly?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it does benefit because it becomes more visible, more useful, and can contribute to agreement being reached on lots of questions. I was asked to mediate many, many questions during this session from Member countries which were negotiating resolutions or proposals, and which had reached deadlock in their negotiations. They came to me and asked me to try to solve them. I was able to solve 34 out of about 35 questions. The only one on which I was not able to reach agreement was the United Nations budget for 1996. On all other questions, my intervention was positive and effective. So, I think that when other countries see someone from a certain country make active and, I hope, positive interventions, they consider that that country can act responsibly and can make a positive contribution to the United Nations. That is the major gain that a country obtains from having a citizen as President.

Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to work with you. I wish all of you all the best for the future.

* *** *

United Nations