YouSaid · the spoken record

Felipe PÉREZ ROQUE

lines on the record: 160
first: 1999-09-24
most recent: 2007-09-24
sittings or episodes: 8
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Why is there no longer any talk about using peaceful means to settle disputes? Can we believe that everyone is fostering friendship among our nations on the basis of respect for the principle of equality of rights and the self-determination of peoples? Why then has my people had to suffer, and continue to suffer, from over four decades of aggression and economic blockade? The principle of the sovereign equality for all States was established when the Charter was adopted. Are we in fact equal? Do all Member States enjoy similar rights? According to the Charter we do, but according to stark reality we do not.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“It is merely a debating forum without any true influence or practical role whatsoever. Are international relations governed by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter? No. Why now, when philosophy, the arts and science are reaching unprecedented levels, is the superiority of some peoples over others once again proclaimed? And why are other peoples, who should be treated as brothers and sisters, referred to as living in the dark corners of the planet or on the Euro-Atlantic periphery of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Why do some among us feel entitled to launch a unilateral war, given the fact that in the Charter we proclaimed that military force would only be used to serve the common interest and that collective measures should be taken to preserve peace?”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“The most critical danger stalking us today is the persistence of a world where what prevails is the law of the jungle, the might of the most powerful, the privileges and extravagance of a handful of countries, and the dangers of aggression, underdevelopment and hopelessness for the vast majority. Will a worldwide dictatorship be imposed on our peoples, or will the United Nations and multilateralism be preserved? That is the question. We all agree, I believe, that the role of the United Nations is irrelevant today, or at least is on its way to being so. But some of us say so with concern and would like to strengthen the Organization. Others say so with covert satisfaction and encourage the hope of imposing their designs on the world. We must speak frankly. What role does the General Assembly play today? In truth, almost none.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“It is a source of new and more serious problems, not of solutions. Must the Iraqis be left alone to freely establish their own Government and institutions and make decisions on their natural resources? Yes. It is their right, and they will not stop fighting for it. Must the Security Council be pressured into adopting decisions that would further undermine it ethically and morally? No. That would eliminate the last possibility to profoundly reform, expand and democratize the Council. The future of the United Nations will be determined today in the outcome of the international crisis generated by the war in Iraq.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Unfortunately, the truth is that those most able to prevent and remove threats to peace are the ones causing war today. Should the Government of the United States recognize this truth that almost everyone in this Hall shares? Yes. What humiliation or harm would there be to the prestige of this great nation? None. The world would recognize that a remedy benefiting all had come about, after the unleashing of a war supported by just a few, either by shortsightedness or by meanness of interests; after it was proven that the pretexts brandished were not true; and after observing the reaction of a people who, as every invaded and occupied people will do, have begun to fight and will continue to fight for respect for their right to self-determination. 23 Therefore, must the occupation in Iraq cease? Yes, and the sooner the better.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“A bipolar world was born, which generated clashes, divisions, the cold war and almost a devastating nuclear war. It was not the ideal world, far from it. But since one of those super-Powers has disappeared, the current world is worse and more dangerous. Now world order cannot be held together in the spheres of influence of two similar super-Powers or by mutual deterrence. What should it be founded on, then? On the honest and generous recognition by the only super-Power that, far from disturbing it, should contribute to the creation of a peaceful world, with the right to justice and development for all. Does the war in Iraq contribute to that objective? No, it does not. Its outcome is just the opposite of the ideal of preserving peace, strengthening the role of the United Nations and enhancing multilateralism and international cooperation.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“Last century bore witness to two terrible world wars, in which over 80 million human beings perished. It later seemed that, due to the lessons learned, the United Nations Organization was born so that war would never again occur. The Charter, adopted in San Francisco nearly 60 years ago, proclaimed the purpose of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war'. However, after that we suffered wars of aggression and conquest, colonial wars, border wars and ethnic wars. Many peoples were left with no other choice but war to defend their rights. Moreover, in the last 13 years the scourge of war has taken another 6 million lives. Sixty years ago, the world order proclaimed in the United Nations Charter was sustained through the military balance of two super-Powers.”
2003-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 58 (2003)
“I recognize that Cuba's remarks may not be accepted by some in this Hall. I even understand that they could be interpreted as a tirade against a country in particular. However, that is not the reason. Words must be used to uphold the truth and that is what Cuba has done and will always do. We are a small, noble people that long ago proclaimed that, for all Cubans, “motherland is humankind”.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“It is essential that the United Nations system be provided with new financial resources to fight poverty, underdevelopment, disease and famine. It is essential that the World Trade Organization be rescued from the interests of a handful of rich and powerful countries and transformed into an instrument at the service of a fair and equitable international trading system. The meagre results derived from the Monterrey and Johannesburg conferences and the justified wave of annoyance and uncertainty in their wake once again raise the issue of the lack of political will by the major industrialized Powers to relinquish a portion of their privileges in order to produce a real change in the unfair and unsustainable world order that is currently visiting impoverishment and hopelessness upon two thirds of the planet's population.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“What real international justice can be expected of a body that lacks a definition of the crime of aggression or that will receive instructions from the Security Council either to call off or to postpone a trial indefinitely at the request of one of its permanent members? Who can guarantee that the Court will not end up becoming an instrument at the service of interventionism and domination by the most powerful countries? Cuba reiterates here today what it expressed at the recent Johannesburg Summit: a reworking of international financial institutions is called for. A legitimate replacement for the International Monetary Fund is called for. It is essential that the work of the World Bank be aimed at supporting the genuine exercise by over 130 third world countries of their right to development.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“To use the Security Council as a tool to amend de facto the international treaty that gave birth to the Court, or to impose upon others humiliating bilateral agreements, compelling them to violate their international obligations deriving from that instrument, is not only arrogant, but also irresponsible. The International Criminal Court now vaunted is not the body that we need and have fought for, subject as it is to hegemonic political interests and already a potential victim of manipulation, and bound from its inception to the decisions of a permanent member of the Security Council.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“I am talking about the presence of the third world and not about military power as a justification for membership of a democratic body; I am talking about eliminating the veto and other antidemocratic practices from a transparent body; and I am talking about putting an end to the secret conspiracies and to the substantive decisions made in private by a mere few and then imposed on the rest. Today, when it is more threatened than ever, Cuba strongly defends the need to preserve multilateralism in international relations. That is why we have witnessed in frustration the disappointing completion of the negotiations for the establishment of the International Criminal Court, which Cuba supported on the understanding that it would be a truly impartial, non- selective, efficient and independent body to complement national justice systems.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Cuba defends the need both for its preservation and for its most profound reform and democratization, but all this must be accomplished through respect for its Charter and not by rewriting it or distorting its purposes and principles. The General Assembly must ultimately be allowed to play the role laid down for it in the Charter. The Security Council has to be rescued from the disrepute and doubts that are so rightly weighing it 21 down, so that it may become a truly representative body.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“The international community is increasingly concerned about the announcement of a new war on the basis of unconfirmed allegations and disregarding the obvious reality that Iraq cannot pose a danger to the United States. If the United States Government unleashes a new war against Iraq, either by imposing it on the Security Council or by deciding upon it unilaterally in opposition to international public opinion, we will bear witness to the emergence of a century of unilateralism and the forced retirement of the United Nations. It will then seem that the cold war years — with its distant memory of bipolarism, mistakes and contradictions — were not as futile and perilous as the era that is now inexorably looming over the world. The United Nations has to be saved.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“But refraining from telling the truth out of cowardice or political calculation is not characteristic of Cuban revolutionaries. Therefore, Cuba hereby states that it opposes a new military action against Iraq. It does so while recalling that at one point it supported the Security Council resolution asking the Iraqi Government to end the occupation of Kuwait. We believe that the development of weapons of mass destruction today would be insane, because the only possible way that we envision for world peace is through general and complete disarmament, including nuclear disarmament, and the rechannelling of the money currently spent on weapons to address the dire socio-economic problems of humankind. The Arab countries have been emphatic in their rejection of this war, and most European countries do not approve of it.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“These questions should be answered by those who in this Hall carry upon their shoulders the responsibility for what is currently happening in the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories. A new war against Iraq already seems inevitable; an aggravation of the situation of constant aggression that that people has lived in over the last ten years. The buzzword now is “pre-emptive war”, in open violation of the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter. Cuba defends principles, not expedience. Therefore, although its supporters may feel upset, it emphatically opposes this war. Cuba is not driven by an anti-American spirit, even when its Government maintains and strengthens a 40-year-old blockade against our people.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“Why have some refrained from uttering even a single word to condemn the aggressions against the territory of Palestine and the crimes against its people? Why has there not been any condemnation of the selective assassinations and the use of the armed forces against the civilian population? Why are there assurances of impunity for the actions of the Israeli army, thus tying the hands of the Security Council? Why have there not been any firm actions to implement the Security Council resolutions that ensure the proclamation of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital? Why is the only superpower on the planet acting differently from one case to the other? Why is there no end to the suffering of the Palestinian mothers whose children are also murdered, like the innocent people on 11 September?”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“On a day like today, I would like to repeat Cuba's remarks at the last session of the General Assembly: “Only under the leadership of the United Nations will we be able to defeat terrorism. Cooperation, and not war, is the way. The coordination of actions, and not imposition ... is the method. ... “Cuba reiterates its condemnation of terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations. Cuba reiterates that it will not allow its territory ever to be used for terrorist acts against the people of the United States or of any other country.” (A/56/PV.50, pp. 21 and 22) Why have we not seen the same zeal with which the war in Afghanistan was unleashed in the search for a just and lasting solution for peace in the Middle East?”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“However, as a signal of the clear political will of the Cuban Government and its commitment to an effective disarmament process that ensures world peace, our country has decided to adhere to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In doing so, we reaffirm our hope that all nuclear weapons will finally be totally eliminated under strict international verification. 20 In addition, and despite the fact that the only nuclear power in the Americas pursues a policy of hostility towards Cuba that does not rule out the use of force, Cuba will also ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco, that was signed by our country in 1995.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“It has cooperated fully with the work of the committee set up for such purposes by the Security Council and, at the bilateral level, it proposed to the United States Government the adoption of a programme to combat terrorism, which was, incomprehensibly, rejected by that Government. Until today, and despite the fact that it has not developed and has no intention ever to develop nuclear weapons, Cuba has not been a State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for it is an insufficient and discriminatory instrument allowing the establishment of a club of nuclear powers without any concrete disarmament commitments.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“There has been a step backward in the field of public freedoms and civil rights. In the meantime, there is a lack of political will by certain powers to rigorously apply, without selectivity and without double standards, the 12 existing international legal instruments on terrorism. In addition, no advances have been made in the definition, so indispensable today, of State terrorism. For its part, Cuba — a victim of terrorist acts for over four decades, which stated its opinions in the Assembly with poise and firmness and unwaveringly condemned the crime of September 11 and terrorism as such, but which also opposed the war out of ethical considerations and the respect for international law — signed and ratified the 12 international conventions to combat terrorism and adopted a national law to fight this scourge.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“In an unusual fashion, it was stated that whoever did not support the war decided upon by a single country would then be on the side of terrorism. It was even announced to the Security Council that that country reserved the right to launch future attacks on its own against other nations. A unilateral war was then unleashed, whose death toll is still unknown to us and whose most tangible consequence is probably the blow to the credibility of the United Nations and to multilateralism as a means to cope with the complex challenges currently ahead of us. What is the outcome today? There are greater feelings of hatred, vengeance and insecurity, which are not helpful in the fight against terrorism. Dangerous xenophobic and discriminatory tendencies threaten the existence of a plural and democratic world.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“A year ago, the General Assembly had to be postponed because of the ruthless crime committed on 11 September. There was then a worldwide wave of solidarity towards the people of the United States and, particularly, towards the families of the almost 3,000 innocent victims of that unjustifiable terrorist attack. The conditions were created for setting up a genuine international alliance under the auspices and leadership of the United Nations, with absolute respect for the purposes and principles enshrined in its Charter. Nearly all countries, above and beyond ideological, political, cultural and religious differences, expressed our willingness to collaborate actively with this endeavour of unmistakable common interest. However, another vision was imposed.”
2002-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 57 (2002)
“For many years now, we have proclaimed that for us Cubans, the historical dilemma is: “Motherland or Death!” From this comes our confidence and sureness that we are and will continue to be a worthy, sovereign and just people.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Cuba does not nurture any hatred towards the American people, whom we do not hold responsible for our suffering caused by terrorism, acts of aggression and the unfair economic war that we have had to withstand during almost an entire lifetime. We share with the American people the aspiration of one day having relations based on respect and cooperation. If anyone here takes offence at these words uttered on behalf of a small, generous and courageous people, I apologize. We speak in a straightforward manner. Words exist to uphold the truth, not to conceal it. We rebel against injustice and oppression. We have the moral resolution. We defend our ideals with our lives. Our support can be won for any just cause, but we will not be overcome by force, or allow absurd slogans or shameful campaigns to be forced upon us.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Cuba has the will to do this because it has suffered terrorist acts for over 40 years; because in Cuba there are still the relatives of the nearly 3,500 Cubans killed as a result of acts of aggression and terrorism; and because justice is still demanded by the more than 2,000 Cubans disabled by acts of aggression and terrorism. Some of Cuba’s sons and daughters who fought against terrorism have become the victims of 23 cruel persecutions, merciless treatment and unjust and slanderous trials. The people of the United States are victims not only of terrorism and panic but also of the lack of truthful information, manipulation and the questionable curbing of their freedoms.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Cuba demands that the General Assembly, the Security Council and the United Nations Organization as a whole take up once again, as top priorities, the debate of these problems on which depend the lives of 4.5 billion inhabitants of the third world, whose rights and hopes have also been buried under the rubble of the World Trade Center. Cuba reiterates its categorical condemnation of the terrorist acts committed last 11 September. Cuba reiterates its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Cuba reiterates that it will not allow its territory ever to be used for terrorist acts against the people of the United States or of any other country.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Let us come together to seek justice for this great crime — and let us do so without war; let us come together to save from death the hundreds of thousands of poor women who die during childbirth every year; let us come together to save from death the 12 million children who die of preventable diseases before the age of 5 every year in the third world; let us come together to bring medicine for AIDS to the 25 million Africans who today are hopelessly awaiting death; let us come together to invest in development at least a portion of the billions already spent on bombing a country in which almost nothing has been left standing.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Will we be willing to organize a coalition against poverty, famine, ignorance, diseases and the scourge of AIDS that is currently decimating the African continent; a coalition for sustainable development, for the preservation of the environment and against the destruction of the planet? A coalition has been assembled to avenge the grievous and unjustifiable death of over 4,000 innocent people in the United States.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“This war must be stopped, not only because its consequences for the Afghan civilian population, but also because of the danger of destabilization in that region. It must be stopped in order not only to save thousands of Americans — mostly young — and thousands of Afghans and other nationals from a senseless death, and not only to preserve international peace and stability, but because this conflict makes it impossible to achieve the objective set by the United Nations 15 years ago: the right to development for all, and an equal opportunity to attain it, and because it renders obsolete the decision made only a year ago to work together in order to eliminate poverty from the face of the Earth.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Cuba, which is not under obligation to anyone, will continue to be consistent in its positions. Truth and ethical considerations should prevail above all else. The way events have unfolded, the increased level of hatred and the intensification of passions and potential dangers have shown the absolute truth of the assertion that war has never been, is not, and never will be the way to eradicate terrorism. The most critical socio-economic crisis ever — the result, halfway through the last decade, of the resounding and irreversible failure of neo-liberalism and neo-liberal globalization — has been dramatically aggravated by this war, which was imposed by one side but whose consequences we all have to bear.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“That would be a stupid reaction, since, under those circumstances, the only thing that poor, suffering country would have to gain would be a universal condemnation of the use of such weapons. Such threats serve only the interests of the extremist and belligerent forces within the United States, which favour the use of the most sophisticated weapons of mass destruction against the Afghan people. The best weapon for a country that is the victim of aggression is to earn and keep the sympathy of the world, and not to allow anyone to violate the ethical principle that no one has the right to kill children, not even if others are doing it. There is no justice in killing innocent people to avenge the death of other innocents. Cuba has stated without hesitation that it is opposed to terrorism and to war.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Indeed, several of those Powers have acted as accomplices to, and taken part in, the traffic in fissile material and the transfer of nuclear technology, as suits their interests. However, in reality, given the conditions of war in Afghanistan, it would be ridiculous to resort to those threats. To do so would be 22 to show tremendous political and military ignorance. If one lacked such means, this would be a dangerous bluff, and if one did have them, it would be absolute madness to threaten to use them. If the threats contained in the statement published by two Pakistani newspapers are true, they deserve the strongest condemnation, as would the eventual use of such weapons against Afghanistan.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Only four days ago, the Pakistani media attributed to a character who is well known and very familiar to the United States a statement supposedly made from Afghan territory saying that he has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them against the United States if it uses similar weapons against Afghanistan. Everybody knows that Afghanistan does not have the slightest ability to produce or launch nuclear or chemical weapons. Only a terrorist organization or leader could come up with the idea of executing an action of this kind using nuclear or chemical weapons. Of course, theoretically this could be possible, as a consequence of the irresponsible behaviour of the major nuclear Powers and as a result of the arms trade, corruption and illegal trafficking in all sorts of military technology.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“This has been a longtime aspiration of the Non-Aligned Movement and should enable us, as a result of open discussions, collective action and respectful and non-discriminatory agreement — and not of threats, terror or force — to find a way to fully eliminate terrorism and its causes. Here I am speaking of terrorism committed not only against the United States but against any other country — even if emanating from the territory of the United States, or tolerated by, or with the complicity of, its authorities, as has been Cuba’s painful experience for over four decades.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“This will allow us finally to define terrorism with accuracy. We have to prevent attempts from being made by a handful of actors with vested interests to try to label as such the right of nations to fight for their self-determination or against foreign aggression. It must be clearly established that the support, abetting, financing or concealment of terrorist actions by a State is also an act of terrorism. Cuba, which is working on its own anti-terrorism law, which should be in effect shortly, unreservedly endorses the proposal to convene an international conference on terrorism under the auspices of the United Nations.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Our objective must be to obliterate terrorism by removing its root causes — and not the hegemonic assertion of the strength of a super-Power, thus turning us into accomplices to its arrogance and arbitrariness. Therefore, Cuba — which has already responded to the Secretary-General’s appeal by deciding to immediately ratify all of the international legal instruments on terrorism — resolutely supports the adoption of a general convention on international terrorism. Of course, this will be possible only in the context of the General Assembly, which — though now completely ignored by those who are promoting the new campaign — has, over the past 10 years, despite the silence and apathy of the Security Council, adopted the principal resolutions and declarations calling for an outright combat against terrorism.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“We have not done so out of concern for our own security, because there is no power in the world that can subdue our spirit of independence, freedom and social justice and the courage to defend it at any cost. We did so, because we believe that it is still possible to halt the escalation of a useless, brutal war that threatens to further plunge into hopelessness, insecurity and death the poor peoples of the planet, who are by no means responsible for any act of terrorism, but will be — and already are — the main victims of this senselessness. Only under the leadership of the United Nations will we be able to defeat terrorism. Cooperation, and not war, is the way. The coordination of actions, and not the imposition of will, is the method.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“The world was surprised to learn of the official announcement of the United States to the Security Council that it reserved the right to decide on an attack against other countries in the future. What is left of the Charter after this? Can this unprecedented threat by any chance be interpreted as an exercise of the right to legitimate defence, enshrined in the Charter as the right of a State to deal with acts of aggression until the Council adopts the necessary measures, and not as a vulgar excuse to unleash attacks against other countries? Is this announcement, or is it not, the proclamation of the right of a super-Power to trample upon the still fragile and incomplete standards that protect the sovereignty, security and rights of peoples? Cuba calmly and firmly rejects that language.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“It has rather imposed its war on a unilateral basis and has stated in an unprecedented way that whoever does not second them is for terrorism. How long will the precarious support obtained last, since it is not based on harmonized objectives and voluntary agreement, but on the imposition of will through threats and pressures? You can be the strongest, but not necessarily right. You can inspire dread, but not sympathy and respect. Only from genuine international cooperation — in which all countries, big and small, participate with a full understanding of everyone’s positions, with broadmindedness and tolerance in the 21 methods used, within the framework of the United Nations and the strict respect for the principles enshrined in its Charter — can a truly effective and lasting alliance emerge to fight terrorism.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“What Cuba expresses in this Hall, with full openness, may not be to the liking of those who run the United States today, but it will be understood one day by the American people, whose generosity and sense of justice were proved to the Cuban people when it had the support of 80 percent of the public opinion in this country in our struggle to prevent a kidnapped Cuban child from being torn away from his family and subjected to ludicrous political manipulations and cruel psychological tortures. What Cuba is saying from this rostrum, as we well know, is what many people have been saying in the corridors of this building. What international coalition are we talking about? What is its legitimacy based on if it has started by scandalously disregarding the General Assembly? The United States has not fostered international cooperation.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“If the United States obtained a military victory by eliminating all regular and irregular Afghan resistance — something that is not at all easy in practice and extremely costly on a moral level, for it would represent a real genocide without attaining the objective that we must pursue — the world would be farther away than ever from achieving peace, security and the eradication of terrorism. Cuba’s discourse is not founded on ill feelings against the country that has been our most pitiless adversary for over 40 years. It is inspired by a sincere, constructive spirit and a sense of respect for and sympathy towards the people of the United States, which suffered an unjustifiable and atrocious terrorist attack. It is also based on the aspiration for peace and justice for all the peoples of the world.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“As to its methods, no honest voice would be raised in this Hall to defend the endless slaughter, with the most sophisticated weaponry, of a dispossessed, starving, helpless people. As to its doubtful purposes, this war will never be justified from the point of view of ethics and international law. Those responsible for it will one day be judged by history. Cuba has opposed this war from the very beginning as an absurd, inefficient method to eradicate terrorism, and reiterates that it can only bring more hatred and ever-increasing dangers of new actions of this kind. No one has the right to continue murdering children, aggravating the humanitarian crisis and visiting impoverishment and death on millions of refugees.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Before delivering my statement, I would like to express our condolences to the United States, the Dominican Republic and other countries represented here that have lost citizens among the many passengers and crew members who perished in yesterday’s tragic crash of American Airlines flight 587, and I hereby extend these condolences to their families. The war in Afghanistan must be stopped. The Government of the United States must acknowledge that it has made a mistake, and must halt its ineffective, unjustifiable bombing campaign against the Afghan people. Judging by its results, it would seem that this war has targeted children, the civilian population and the hospitals and facilities of the International Committee of the Red Cross.”
2001-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 56 (2001)
“Today, on behalf of that same generous and courageous people, we can once again say to our third world brothers and to all those who anywhere in the world defend our right to life and development that revolutionary socialist Cuba will never cease to struggle for everyone's dreams.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“It has to do with the blockade that this very General Assembly has rejected for eight consecutive years and which is still in force despite worldwide rejection and the obvious disapproval of the people of the United States. 21 In these four decades, our people have resisted acts ranging from political pressures and attempts at diplomatic isolation to the most insidious lying campaigns, from subversion and terrorism to assassination attempts on its main leaders, from biological warfare to the most ruthless blockade and economic war and from the promotion of armed bands to military invasion and the threat of nuclear extermination.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“The time had not yet arrived when hundreds of thousands of Cubans would go to African lands to struggle for the real rights of its people, against apartheid, disease and illiteracy. That was the moment when the United States Government set out to overthrow the Cuban revolution, which, committed to social justice and true independence for its people, threatened, through its ethics, its morality and its example, the secular domination that the United States had exercised over the entire western hemisphere. That was the moment when the economic, trade and financial blockade was implemented against Cuba — a blockade that, in the course of a harsh 40-year-old economic war, has engendered such shameful pieces of legislation as the Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“At this point, therefore, we believe that we should at least work to effect a proportional increase in the total number of Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, ensuring adequate representation for third world countries, as strongly reiterated by the Millennium Summit. How could the Security Council be expanded without the inclusion of a reasonable number of permanent members from the third world? Forty years ago, on behalf of Cuba, the leader of a triumphant revolution proclaimed from this very rostrum the dreams of hope and social justice for which the Cuban people had struggled for almost a century. Most of the States now represented in this Assembly were colonies at that time. There was no talk then — as there is today — about saving Africa, while it was being ruthlessly pillaged.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“Democratizing the United Nations and its Security Council requires, as indispensable measures, the abolition of the vexing and anachronistic veto privilege; an increase in the number of Council members in proportion to the fourfold increase in the number of States Members of the Organization; the application of the principle of equitable geographical representation to the composition of that body, as with all others; and the fulfilment of its obligation, as enshrined in the Charter but ignored in practice, of reporting to the General Assembly. Let us be realistic. Security Council reform is — I will not mince words — as far away today as it ever was. We should recognize that after seven years of fruitless efforts we have managed to agree only that it is necessary to increase the number of members of the Council.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)
“We must put an end, right now, to the arrogance of the few if we do not want the hopes for a world of justice and peace for all to crumble. In order to attain it, let us ensure that the United Nations truly contributes to building solidarity among nations and not to the domination of a few over the overwhelming majority. Let us face up to the attempt of some to put pressure on the United Nations through the non-payment of agreed contributions. Let us reject the use of the United Nations to impose a new colonial order. Let us demand that the Security Council act as the representative of all, not as the servant of one. Let us prevent it from arrogating to itself powers that it does not have, thereby violating the United Nations Charter and operating without due transparency while it decides upon matters of life or death.”
2000-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 55 (2000)