GA/9791

SPEAKERS CONDEMN UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Unilateral economic sanctions were widely condemned in the General Assembly this morning but, at the request of Libya, the Assembly postponed action on a draft resolution on that matter which Libya had itself sponsored. The Assembly also concluded its debate on the Report of the Security Council.

By the terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would have, once again, called upon all States not to recognize or apply extraterritorial coercive economic measures, or legislative enactments unilaterally imposed by any State.

Introducing the draft, the representative of Libya said the issue was not a matter exclusively of concern to Libya but to the whole international community, since it dealt with radical violations of international law, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. One State had decided to enact a law that obliged implementation outside its territory. It aimed to force all States to act according to a law enacted by one State for its own interests, thereby making itself a god on this planet.

The United States had acted not only to punish Libya but also other States, such as Cuba, he said. Those acts were directed against other countries as well, since any country cooperating with targeted countries would also be punished.

Cuba's representative noted there was growing rejection of unilaterally imposed coercive economic measures among the majority of the members of the international community. That rejection had been expressed in many resolutions of the General Assembly, but in spite of this, the principal economic and political power still applied such measures against developing countries for political objectives.

He energetically condemned the application of those measures as a clear violation of international law and a serious infringement on the principles of State equality, non-intervention and non-interference. They revealed the true political character of countries promoting free trade, but creating significant obstacles to the free movement of international commerce.

The representative of Iraq said the embargo on his people by the United States, in the name of the United Nations, was a prime example of the use of coercive measures as means of political and economic compulsion. The embargo shamed the United Nations, whose mechanism had been used as an instrument of United States foreign policy. At the present time, the United States imposed economic sanctions against more than 70 countries. To permit such hegemonic

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9791 37th Meeting (AM) 19 October 2000

policies to continue would ultimately undermine the legal pillar on which the international community was resting.

The Assembly also decided to take note of the report of the Security Council.

Concerning its agenda item �Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons�, the Assembly decided that matter would be considered on Friday, 20 October, and agreed to hear the Director- General of the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on that date.

Representatives of Jamaica, Iran, Norway, Egypt, Indonesia, Cameroon, Philippines, Nepal and Rwanda addressed the Assembly on the Report of the Security Council.

On elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion, the Assembly was also addressed by representatives of Belarus, South Africa, Sudan, Iran and Nigeria (on behalf of the �Group of 77� developing countries and China). The Observer of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Permanent Observer of the Holy See also spoke, and the representatives of Kuwait and Iraq exercised their right of reply.

The Assembly took note of the Secretary-General�s letter informing the Assembly�s President, Harri Holkeri (Finland), that Haiti had made the necessary payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the United Nations Charter.

The Assembly will convene again tomorrow, 20 October, to consider cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

General Assembly Plenary - 2 - Press Release GA/9791 37th Meeting (AM) 19 October 2000

Assembly Work Programme

The fifty-fifth general session of the General Assembly met this morning to continue its debate on the Report of the Security Council (for more information on this subject, see Press Release GA/9788 of 17 October), and to take up consideration of the agenda item entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion�.

The General Assembly had before it a report of the Secretary-General (document A/55/300 and Add. 1 and 2) on the elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion. The General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare this report in October 1998 and to submit it to the Assembly for consideration at its fifty-fifth session. Following that request, the Secretary-General sent a note to Member States in 18 May 2000, inviting them to provide any information they wished to contribute to the preparation of the report.

Replies received as of 15 August 2000 are reproduced in the report. Replies were received from Benin, Democratic People�s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Iran, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Nauru, Senegal and Yemen.

Addendum 1 to the report contains the reply from Sudan, which opposes the extraterritorial application of domestic laws, in particular, unilateral trade measures imposing coercive penalties and sanctions, such as those the United States is maintaining against Sudan, Libya and other countries.

Addendum 2 to the report contains the replies of the Government of Cuba and the Government of Iraq.

Cuba strongly condemns the application of unilateral coercive economic measures as a means of bringing political and economic pressure to bear on developing countries. The application of such measures was not only injurious to the State concerned, but also affected other sensitive areas, such as the enjoyment of human rights of the peoples against whom these unilateral policies were directed.

Similarly, in its reply, Iraq rejected the use of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion and of depriving States of their sovereign right to choose their own political, economic and social systems. Further, even the intimation of the use of coercive economic measures constituted a flagrant violation of the principles of the Charter. Since the first victims of coercive economic measures were the vulnerable groups -- notably, children, women and the elderly -- they resulted in humanitarian problems as well.

Also before the Assembly was a draft resolution submitted by Libya, on elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion (document A/55/L.9), by which the Assembly would reiterate its call for the repeal of unilateral extraterritorial laws that imposed sanctions on corporations and nationals of other States and, once again, call upon all States not to recognize or apply extraterritorial coercive economic measures or legislative enactments unilaterally imposed by any State.

By the terms of the draft, the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-seventh session an item entitled "Elimination of coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion". It would ask the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to that session.

Statements

M. PATRICIA DURRANT (Jamaica) said all agreed that the character of the Security Council�s work had changed dramatically since the end of the cold war, and with the increase in intra-State conflicts which had implications for international peace and security. �This has broadened the scope of the issues before the Council and challenged it to find ways to be more responsive to situations as they arise�, she noted. The Security Council had sought to become more responsive by focusing its attention on conflicts in Africa and now had peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia and Eritrea, as well as its involvement with the Great Lakes region. In addition, the Council had addressed the prevention of armed conflict, demobilization, disarmament and reintegration, children and armed conflict, and the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers in the face of armed conflict.

There was some progress evident as a result of efforts by the Security Council to respond to Member States� call to raise the standard of its reporting to the General Assembly by being more analytic and informative, she said. There was an improvement in the transparency of the work of the Council. As much as possible, the Council�s work should be conducted in public, although the use of private meetings allowed participants to have frank exchanges of views, as had occurred in meetings with Nelson Mandela and Sir Ketumile Masire. While some reform had taken place, much remained to be done.

She supported the Security Council�s decision to create a Working Group on Sanctions and looked forward to it providing practical recommendations for streamlining sanctions regimes and guidelines for the imposition and lifting of sanctions. Jamaica commended the work done on the Angola and Sierra Leone sanctions, which sharpened focus on the link between armed conflict and the illegal exploitation of natural resources, particularly diamonds. In addition, it was important to undertake a full examination of the recommendations relating to the Council that were contained in the Brahimi Report on United Nations peace operations. In closing, she underscored the need for a stronger Security Council which would effectively ensure the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with the principles and purpose of the Charter of the United Nations.

HADI NEJAD HOSSEINIAN (Iran) said that the agenda item under consideration was of great importance, yet the report was mainly a compilation of documents, recalling activities and restating facts about those activities. The current document described only what the Security Council had done, and remained largely silent about the reasons and circumstances leading to the decisions adopted. The General Assembly, at its fifty-first session, had adopted a resolution in an effort to reform the reporting procedure of the Council. In this resolution, the Council was encouraged to provide a substantive and analytical account of its work, and to include information on the consultations of the whole undertaken prior to any actions by the Council. Unfortunately, the Council report continued to fall short of the wishes of the General Assembly.

The positive outcome to the peace process in Tajikistan was attributable, in part, to United Nations involvement, he said. This was exactly what had been lacking with regard to the crisis in the Middle East. It was very unfortunate that, even in the face of provocations, and of excessive use of force by Israeli forces against defenseless Palestinian civilians, a great deal of effort was made to hold back the Council from looking into the issue. Despite the request made by regional groups, it had taken a long time to overcome opposition to the holding of a public meeting on the Palestinian question. It was equally unfortunate that the rights of non-members to participate in the debate at the public meeting on the issue were questioned and disputed. It was regrettable that some tried hard to prevent the general membership of the United Nations from simply expressing opinions, expectations, frustrations and even anger, when the world community was incapable of protecting civilians from the cruelty of a well-armed army of occupation.

The way in which the Security Council had dealt with the situation in the Middle East over the past several decades was a manifestation of the inadequacy and inappropriateness of its working methods, especially those allowing the exercise of a veto. The mere existence of the right of veto had prevented the Council from dealing effectively with, among others, the crises in Kosovo and that in the Palestinian occupied territories in the last and the current year. Iran hoped that the Working Group that dealt with reform of the Security Council could finally reach agreement on curtailing the right of veto, with a view to its final elimination. The exacerbation of the situation in Afghanistan continued to warrant close attention by the Security Council. It should send warning signals to the belligerent party and follow up on the decisions it had already made. Sustained political involvement by the Council was absolutely necessary for inducing the Taliban to accept a negotiated settlement.

OLE PETER KOLBY (Norway) said it was clear that questions of peace and security were closely interlinked with issues that were the responsibility of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and other development bodies. Cooperation between the Council and the various United Nations entities responsible for vital areas, such as poverty reduction, development assistance, human rights and the environment, was crucial to tackling the root causes of conflict. He, therefore, stressed the need for a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention and peace-building.

He said Norway welcomed the fact that both regular and informal practices for sharing Council information with non-members had been established and further improved. In addition, open meetings on important security issues on the Council�s agenda should ensure that the views of the United Nations membership at large were taken into account. At the same time, those open meetings should be clearly focused on the relevant issues and conflicts to ensure the highest possible efficiency in the Council�s conflict resolution activities.

He stressed the importance of making full use of the mechanisms that had been established to facilitate consultations between Council members and troop contributors to peace operations. Also, regional and subregional organizations had, in recent years, become ever more important instruments in United Nations efforts to promote international peace and security �- Africa was case in point. It was crucial that the Council remained fully focused on the complex challenges facing that continent.

AHMED ABOULGHEIT (Egypt) said he joined many previous speakers in referring to the persistence of a number of weaknesses and pitfalls in the work and working methods of the Council. While the Council had increased the number of public and open meetings, it continued diversifying the format of those meetings and setting fabricated criteria for attendance or participation in them. That made the Council an isolated and selective organ dominated by a limited number of voices that sought to impose their will on others.

The Council also continued using a non-transparent approach to examine situations that threatened international peace and security, he said. It had been engaged for days in considering a request submitted by a number of States to convene a formal meeting intended to address an issue that directly affected international security: the prevailing conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, and had finally come out with a formula which allowed some of its members to control the final format of its meetings. This format had no place under the rules and rights enshrined by the constitution of the Organization for all Member States, he said.

He said that one positive and encouraging point in the decisions of the Council had been the establishment of a time frame for the sanctions imposed in both the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the embargo on the illicit trade in diamonds from Sierra Leone. Sanctions imposed by the Council should not have a negative impact on peoples and their humanitarian dimensions should be taken into account before they were applied, given the damaging repercussions they could have on the infrastructure of societies.

When the Council was faced with a problem that threatened international peace and security, and failed to address the situation because of the threat by one of its permanent members to prevent action, the matter should not be left to the political or military powers to operate without a legal framework emanating from the United Nations. Where the Council failed, the General Assembly remained the primary legislative organ of the Organization that enjoined all of its Member States, and which could always express its opinion under the resolution known as �Uniting for Peace�.

MUSMA MUSA ABBAS (Indonesia) said, despite steady and positive improvements, the Council�s annual report regrettably remained a compilation of the numerous communications addressed to it and the decisions adopted by it. She reiterated that the reports should no longer be a mere description of activities and a reproduction of resolutions that were already known. Rather, they should contain assessments of the decisions taken on the various issues, in order to meet the need for greater clarity and understanding of the Council�s reasons and motives for adopting them. Addressing sanctions, she said they should have clear and specific time frames as well as appropriate review mechanisms.

Sanctions, she continued, should be lifted when their objectives had been achieved, otherwise they could cause enormous suffering, not only for the targeted country but also to neighbouring States and beyond. Indonesia shared the growing distrust and skepticism about the rationale and usefulness of sanctions. The Council had imposed them 12 times in the past decade and only twice prior to that period. That increase alone, as well as its attendant humanitarian consequences, called for an agonizing reappraisal of sanctions. Peacekeeping activities also warranted a major review to determine the causes of failures and prevent such setbacks in the future. Confronted by rapid developments in the field, peacekeeping operations had become immensely complex with new types of tasks entrusted to peacekeepers.

She went on to say that the Organization�s credibility in the millennium might, among other things, depend upon effective implementation of its peacekeeping responsibilities. For that reason, Indonesia had recently decided to establish a national training centre for peacekeeping to facilitate its continued and active participation in such operations. The accountability of the Council would ultimately have to be judged by its record for objectivity and impartiality, fairness and just decisions. Recent events, however, tended to demonstrate selectivity and the application of different yardsticks and criteria in dealing with similar situations. That could affect its credibility.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said that, during the period that was being discussed, Africa continued to occupy an important place in the agenda of the Security Council. Africa�s problems continued to be discussed, although the results of those discussions had not always lived up to the immense hopes expressed by African people. Above all, the Council had, this year, launched a new vision of its relationship with Africa. On 15 December 1999, it had devoted a public session to the partnership between the United Nations and Africa. Reading the Security Council report with African eyes led him back to the necessity of this partnership.

Africa was the region most bruised by war and conflict, he said. It could and must have a better future. Africa�s partnership with the United Nations and the Security Council was a necessity. African problems impacted on international peace and security. The enormous resources of the continent had tempted many, and Africa was a heavyweight in every sense. The partnership should have, as its priority, peacekeeping and conflict prevention. Action in this area was the responsibility of the Security Council, but if it was to be efficient, such action must involve Africa and win its consent. Africa rejected the idea of fate and rejected resignation, and each of the major regions of the continent had developed structures for conflict control and prevention. Along with these regional bodies, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) also played an important part in conflict management and prevention. Africa possessed structures whose capabilities needed to be strengthened by the Security Council if it really wanted to maintain peace and security in Africa.

The African continent was a partner capable of meeting the requirements of articles 52 and 53 of chapter 8 of the Charter, he said. What was required was improvement in, and bolstering of, regional means of early warning, conflict prevention and peacekeeping. The reinforcement of African capacities should also manifest itself through a financial element in peace agreements. In other regions of the world, the signing of such agreements always went had in hand with financial arrangements. Without such agreements, the seeds of insecurity remained. For example, he asked what future would a peace agreement have without any arrangements made for child soldiers. He invited the Security Council to reflect upon appointing an Africa Coordinator to work with the Secretary-General. His task would be to implement fully article 54 of the Charter, act as an interface between the Secretary-General and African leaders and be responsible for assisting the Security Council and the General Assembly in implementing the Secretary-General�s recommendations contained in his report on lasting peace and sustainable development in Africa.

ANACLETO R.A. LACANILAO (Philippines) said that this yearly exercise -- considering the report of the Security Council -- had its function and purpose. It allowed non-member States of the Security Council to air their views on the work done by the Security Council for the past year. But, if anything, it also typified the growing chasm between the Security Council and the General Assembly. There was palpable discontent, based on what was said from the podium, on how the Security Council conducted its business on a daily basis almost oblivious to the general sentiments of other Member States. It was not difficult to imagine that the two bodies, the General Assembly and the Security Council, were out of step with each other on important issues.

Maintenance of international peace and security was a core function of the United Nations, he said. It was in peacekeeping where the partnership of countries for the cause of peace found tangible expression. Where personnel resources became critically short for peacekeeping, the contribution of even small countries became indispensable, he said. Peacekeeping had evolved in such a way that it could not be sustained unless it received a fair amount of support from the broad membership of the United Nations. No one country, no matter how powerful, could be the world�s policeman. Alas and a lack, global peace and stability could only be realized through a sincere partnership of all.

The path to full partnership between the Security Council and the General Assembly remained steep and arduous, he said. Much would need to be done to overcome a general feeling of resentment that the Security Council had become a private club that conducted private meetings to the exclusion of the general membership of the United Nations. A genuine mechanism for interaction and consultation between the Security Council and the General Assembly must be established, he said. Work for peace was not a zero-sum game, where one body worked to the exclusion of others. There must be room for everyone�s contribution if the United Nations was to attain its cherished goal of peace and progress for all.

MURARI RAJ SHARMA (Nepal) said the report of the Security Council reflected the range and complexity of work the Council had to undertake during the period under review, notably missions launched in Kosovo and East Timor which were in the realm of nation-building, confirming the multiplicity of challenges the United Nations faced to keep the peace. There had been a consistent demand by Member States to make the Security Council more transparent and democratic in its function and more representative, but the present state of affairs indicated that much remained to be done to achieve those fundamental goals. Nepal believed that some progress had been made in procedural reform of the Council, but expressed the view that the Council was obligated to take non-Council members into its confidence by consulting them and keeping them informed at every step of the way.

�The powerful friends, who are represented on the Security Council without facing elections, have, in fact, a moral obligation to pay particular attention to making the process more democratic�, he continued. Non-Council members supported open debates, which seldom had much bearing on the real decisions of the Council, in order to share their perspective, contribute their inputs and offer their advice to a process in which they had a great stake. Moreover, it was just and fair that Member States were consulted prior to their being asked to put the lives of their personnel on the line and to commit their resources. Further, the democratic principle warranted that Member States were given voice and information before they were asked to make their commitments to take risks. It was imperative that the Security Council apply objective criteria when deciding to mount an operation, because there had been ample examples of situations where it had not been even-handed in addressing peace and security issues. Often national interests of certain Member States had outweighed the larger interests of regional and global peace, as had been noted in the report of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities. Nepal was greatly concerned by sanctions which, while a Charter-mandated tool, had wide-ranging impacts that meant this tool should be applied carefully and sparingly. Frequently, such sanctions crippled innocent people in countries on which sanctions were imposed and not those whom they were meant to affect. At the same time, they often hurt third countries and made them innocent victims as well. In concluding, he commended the Brahimi panel on peacekeeping operations because it pointed out the ambiguous and unrealistic mandates that were responsible for the failure of a number of missions, and it also made recommendations �to revamp the management of peace�.

JOSEPH MUTABOBA (Rwanda) said that the newly elected members of the Security Council must work with those they were representing on the Council, rather than focusing on defending their national interests, as many other members had done in the past. Transparency and objectivity were the words that must guide them, he said.

Basing himself on the bad experiences of Rwanda, he suggested that reports on the work of the Security Council include: duties assigned to the Council in the field of ensuring peace and security internationally; means available to fulfil those duties; periodic assessment of the work done and difficulties encountered in the accomplishment of their tasks; decisions and action taken and where, how and why; lessons learned from given missions; and a plan of action for the future. This would make for an objective and realistic report that Member States would like to read, rather than a routine report which did not reflect operational reality in the field, or at Headquarters.

It was time for the Security Council to reform and better reflect the membership of the General Assembly, which it was supposed to be taking work from and reporting back to, he said. It was time for its members to put their hands on their hearts and ask themselves whether they had done what they ought to do. Referring to what happened in Rwanda, he said that a mere flip of a pen from the Security Council could have saved lives in Rwanda, by simply changing the mandate of the United Nations Mission or by reinforcing its troops. The time had come for the Council to report on the choices it made in different cases, and for it to ensure objectivity and transparency in its work.

Adoption of Agenda and Organization of Work Of Fifty-fifth Session of General Assembly

HARRI HOLKERI (Finland), President of the Assembly, drew the delegates� attention to a letter from the Netherlands (document A/55/495) dated 18 October, in which the Netherlands asked that agenda item 181 (entitled �Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons�) be considered on Friday, 20 October, and said it would be desirable if the Director-General of the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons be given the opportunity to address the Assembly.

The Assembly then decided that the item would be considered on Friday, 20 October, and agreed to hear the Director-General of the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on that date.

Elimination of Coercive Measures As Means of Political and Economic Compulsion

Introduction of draft resolution A/55/L.9

ABUZED OMAR DORDA (Libya), introducing the draft, said the item was not a matter exclusively of concern to Libya but to the whole international community, since it dealt with a radical violation of international law, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights. One State had decided to enact a law that imposed implementation of it outside its territory. It insisted all States accept a law enacted by one State for the service of that State�s own interests, making itself a god on this planet and wanting to enslave everyone. �This is madness and nothing more�, he said. Half of the population of Libya had become martyrs when it had achieved independence, and was not ready to give up similar amounts of blood to be subjugated by the United States of America or any other power on Earth.

The United States had imposed a unilateral embargo against Libya, and instigated a United Nations embargo, to address a situation which had not been proved to this moment, he said. They were not able to present proof against the two Libyan defendants (charging with the Lockerbie bombing), as they did not have any involvement in the incident of which they were accused. The United States had acted not only to punish Libya but also other States that had not surrendered to its will, such as Cuba. Any country cooperating with targeted countries would also be punished.

Those unilateral resolutions were also directed against developed countries of the European Union, Canada and Japan. Libya was sponsoring the draft resolution on behalf of all, and called on all to support it. He was flexible and open to amendments and ideas, so long as they did not cancel the purpose of the draft. He wanted the resolution to be adopted unanimously, because it affected everybody: investors, corporations and countries. He proposed to delay voting until the beginning of next week and was ready to accept any amendments as long as the essence was not touched.

Statements

SERGEI LING (Belarus) said that the international community was reaching an understanding on how essential it was that it reassess its approach to coercive methods. Belarus was pleased to note that, for the first time, the Security Council had adopted measures that would give specific time periods for the application of sanctions. It was no accident that the world community was concentrating on sanctions. After the Second World War, they were a very powerful instrument in applying pressure to States, but wholesale application of a formula adopted for that time had not always been successful. This was evident in the lamentable situation in Iraq, that had been confirmed by work done by, among others, the United Nations Children�s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The international community must stop the suffering of the Iraqi people by lifting sanctions.

Research into the effect of coercive economic measures should be undertaken, he said. For example, research carried out in Belarus had shown what his country had suffered as a consequence of sanctions. The initiative by the Czech Republic to set up a group to study the impact of sanctions could be an effective measure. Belarus welcomed active consideration by the Security Council of ways of applying sanctions. Libya and the Sudan should be the subject of further discussion, and there should also be discussions on lifting sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said that the position of Cuba on unilateral coercive economic measures against developing countries was well known. As a result, Cuba had voted in favour of resolution 53/10, adopted by the General Assembly during its fifty-third session, and it would vote in favour of the resolution now before the Assembly. There was a growing rejection of such measures by the majority of the international community, as had been expressed in many resolutions of the General Assembly, but in spite of that, hegemony by the principal economic and political powers was still exercised against developing countries for political objectives.

Cuba energetically condemned the application of those measures as a clear violation of international law and a serious infringement on the principles of the equality of States, and non-intervention and non-interference in internal matters of State sovereignty. At the same time, the enactment of the measures revealed the true political character of those States which promoted free trade but, on the other hand, created significant obstacles to free movement of international commerce. Furthermore, they used their national legislation to impose employment of those obstacles on other countries in clear violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law.

He pointed out that those coercive economic measures deprived people of their human rights by depriving them of well-being, health and the necessary social services. The Human Rights Commission had affirmed that food should not be used as an instrument of political pressure. Cuba took note of the Torricelli, Helms-Burton and D�Amato-Kennedy Laws, which were incompatible with the agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and weakened efforts to maintain a system of equal, non-discriminatory and transparent multilateral trade. The D�Amato-Kennedy Law, also called the law of sanctions against Iran and Libya, imposed sanctions against foreign investors, regardless of their nationality, in the oil industry. In closing, he repeated that Cuba condemned all extraterritorial acts against the sovereignty of people.

SAEED HASAN (Iraq) said that the use of coercive economic measures was a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, and a violation of the article of the Charter that stipulated that the Organization was based on the principle of sovereignty. It was also an outright violation of many conventions, in particular, the Charter of Rights and Treaties of States, adopted in 1974. Furthermore, Assembly resolution 51/22, adopted in 1996, and resolution 53/10, adopted in 1998, had reaffirmed that every State had an inalienable right to political and economic development, and the right to choose the political system it wanted.

The use of coercive measures as means of applying political and economic pressure constituted a genuine threat to international peace and security, he continued. For example, the hardship suffered by Palestine, Cuba, Libya and the Iraqi people were the result of violations international law and humanitarian law. The embargo on the Iraqi people, imposed by the United States in the name of the United Nations, was a prime example of the use of coercive measures as means of political and economic compulsion. It had caused the death of over 1 million Iraqi people, including 500,000 children. It had caused damage to the infrastructure of Iraq, had all the features of genocide, was a crime against humanity and would bring instability to the region and to the world. It shamed the United Nations, whose mechanism had been used as an instrument of United States foreign policy. The United States imposed economic sanctions against more than 70 countries around the world at present. It resorted to brute force to undermine the sovereignty of States, as could be seen with the no-fly zone in Iraq. To permit the policies of hegemony to continue would ultimately undermine the legal pillar on which the international community was resting. The international community should take effective measures to end those policies. Iraq called on all Member States to vote in favor of the draft resolution submitted under this agenda item.

DUMISANI S. KUMALO (South Africa) said that, at the twelfth summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the NAM heads of State had condemned the persistence by certain States of intensifying unilateral coercive measures. They had also condemned the application of domestic legislation with extraterritorial effects against developing countries. Those actions included blockades, embargoes and freezing of assets, with the purpose of preventing those countries from exercising their right to fully determine their political, economic and social system, and to freely expand their international trade. Increased recourse by the major trading countries to actions, such as extraterritorial measures, were both incompatible with and in conflict with international rules and regulation agreed upon in the WTO.

The unjustified and excessive use of anti-dumping measures, to the detriment of trade of developing countries, was a matter of grave concern, he said. He reaffirmed that no State should use, or encourage the use of, economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State, including non-extension of most-favoured-nation status. He urged all States applying unilateral coercive measures to put an immediate end to those measures.

The aim was to create a rules-based system where both small and big nations would be treated as equal sovereign States, he said. Such a democratic reform was necessary, he said, in all international institutions, including the United Nations.

ELFATIH M.A. ERWA (Sudan), aligning the Sudan with South Africa�s statement, said the Secretary-General�s report on activities of the Organization showed that the international community disapproved of the negative impact of sanctions on the populations. Sanctions imposed by the Security Council should be reviewed. He asked if this was the general view of the membership on United Nations sanctions, how much truer must that position be held for sanctions imposed unilaterally.

Coercive economic measures were used to discourage States from exerting their free choice to develop within the framework of their own traditions. Free trade and the transfer of technology were harmed by them. They harmed people in developing countries foremost. Arbitrary laws adopted with extraterritorial application had been rejected by the Assembly, and the Sudan firmly condemned the promulgation of any such legislation as it was out of tune with the Charter and international law.

The Sudan, a victim of such coercive measures, called upon those States which had imposed them to lift them. He supported the draft resolution.

HADI NEJAD HOSSEINIAN (Iran) stated that globalization and the mutual interdependence of societies had created numerous opportunities for international interaction and cooperation. In such an environment, recourse to unilateral and extraterritorial economic coercive measures constituted a major constraint to international cooperation and undermined the basic principles and fundamentals of international trade. The adoption of such measures fell within the mandate of the United Nations, but only in situations where there existed a serious threat to international peace and security. On many occasions, the General Assembly had expressed its disapproval of unilateral and extraterritorial laws enacted by certain states.

He then cited relevant principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations relating to unilaterally-imposed sanction. In addition, the �Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Interference in the Internal Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty�, adopted on 21 December 1969, and the �Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States�, adopted on 12 December 1979, stipulated that States must not use or encourage economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State. The imposition of coercive economic measures, and approval of domestic legislation with extraterritorial implications, contradicted established international trade law, including WTO regulations.

The international community -- both developed and developing countries -- had rejected those illegal measures and actions, he said. Collectively, developing countries systemically rejected recourse to coercive economic measures in the meetings of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, the NAM, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the OAU. The United States� act of applying sanctions against Iran and Libya was an obvious example of an extraterritorial coercive measure that was against international law. The General Assembly, in its resolution 53/10, had expressed grave concern over the negative impact of unilateral extraterritorial coercive economic measures and called for their immediate repeal. He called on Member States to unanimously adopt the draft resolution, because it represented the collective will and commitment of the entire intergovernmental body to the principles, goals and objectives of the Charter.

AUSTIN PETER ETANOMARE OSIO (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the �Group of 77� developing countries and China, said that the Group supported the draft resolution. The declaration issued after the meeting of developing countries in Havana, in April of this year, illustrated many of their concerns. That declaration showed that developing States were deeply concerned with the effect of sanctions upon their targets. The Group had noted that Libya had fulfilled all its obligations and urged that sanctions against Libya be lifted. Its declaration, he said, was very pertinent for the guidance of the Assembly.

ENTCHO GOSPODINOV of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said that any imposition of sanctions exposed a potentially fundamental tension between two purposes: affecting the policies and behaviour of a target government, and protecting the life, health and dignity of the people of that country. Sanctions were intended to deal with the former, but risked undermining the latter during the course of their implementation, he said. Since sanctions as instruments of international will were unlikely to be abandoned, the issue of whether such sanctions should be allowed free rein or -- like warfare -- operate within prescribed limits became critically important.

Sanctions regimes could, and frequently did, intensify human suffering. This suffering was especially acute in its impact on the most vulnerable groups in society, in particular, on children, people at lower socio-economic levels, refugees and displaced persons. It was necessary to pay careful attention to the details of the actual workings of each sanctions regime. It was, for example, now accepted that adequate procedures had to be in place to provide the appropriate humanitarian exemptions whenever sanctions were imposed.

Sanction regimes could have a number of damaging consequences for the fabric of the target community, and be directly harmful to the vulnerable people in the country for years after the sanctions themselves had been lifted, he said. Those included the dislocation of the economic and social structure of the country leading to long-term unemployment, social disorder and enduring hardship for the most vulnerable. All States were urged to take into account, before designing and imposing sanctions, the likely impact on the civilian population both in the short and long term, to monitor those consequences as the basis for modifications, and to support efforts to provide relief for the most vulnerable groups.

RENATO MARTINO (Holy See) said that the Holy See had always opposed the use of coercive economic measures which were harmful to economic and social development. They not only had negative effects on nations upon which they were imposed, but also on those States that suffered effects from the trade barriers that were part of those measures.

He quoted Pope John Paul II's remarks in which he interpreted the Jubilee Year, which fell this year, as an invitation to address economic and social imbalances and redress situations of injustice. In that spirit, he added his voice to those replies received by the Secretary-General, and the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, which call for an end to the use of any coercive measures that were incompatible with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

Rights of Reply

BADER M.E. AL-AWDI (Kuwait), exercising the right of reply, said that the Iraqi representative had dealt with Kuwait in a manner that was not appropriate and had tried, on the basis of his arrogance and selfishness, to mix the issue of unilateral sanctions with that of multilateral sanctions imposed by the Security Council. He did this believing that the people in this hall were ignorant. The draft resolution talked about economic measures and had nothing to do with the sanctions imposed by the Security Council. Iraq had violated the United Nations Charter in the occupation of Kuwait. He called upon Libya not to allow Iraq the opportunity to mix those issues, and asked them to explain to everyone else that what Libya and Cuba were facing was different from the situation faced by Iraq. He asked what the Iraqis called what Iraq did to Kuwait, and whether Iraq had not occupied Kuwait. Kuwait, he said, would like to emphasize that what was being

talked about today was unilateral sanctions and not legitimate sanctions. He would not be silent about this, as Iraq was trying to intimidate Kuwait.

Mr. HASAN (Iraq), exercising his right of reply, said the Kuwaiti regime had spoken in the name of the United States. Kuwait's representative wanted to impose on the General Assembly limits on what delegates should talk about, in which way they could talk about the issue, and what issues should be dealt with. It was true that the United Nations Headquarters was located in the United States, but States had the right to exercise free expression of this rostrum.

All delegations here had dealt with sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, he said. Many multilateral economic measures were imposed coercively because one State wanted them, and those measures were thus, in fact, unilateral. All countries of the world were against the sanctions imposed on Iraq except the United States and, its agent, Kuwait.

In his statement, he had only referred to Kuwait as providing bases for American aircraft to bomb Iraq daily, in fact, using unilateral force against Iraq without any United Nations authorization. That constituted an aggressive act, and providing facilities for such acts, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did, was also an aggressive act. He called on the representative of Kuwait to respect the rights of other States to express their views freely in the Assembly.

Mr. AL-AWDI (Kuwait), exercising his second right of reply, said the accusations and lies of the Iraqi representative had been presented for a long time. As to the question of aggression, Kuwait was a small State that did not commit acts of aggression against anyone. The United States was a friendly country, and Kuwait was bound by agreements. He had promised Libya that he would support the draft resolution to preserve Arab unity. He was not preventing anyone from expressing their view, but reserved the right to express his own views.

Mr. HASAN (Iraq), responding in right of reply to Kuwait�s statement, said he hoped that anyone in the hall would respect others, and respect their intelligence as well. Kuwait�s statement that it was not the aggressor against any State should be heard with this in mind: what could it say when it permitted planes from the United States to launch bombs against innocent children. In relation to the claim that Iraq was applying instructions from Israel, he called such a statement �absolutely absurd�.

* *** *

United Nations