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

1. “Why not expand the number of permanent members? Why could not the Council include at least two or three new permanent members from Latin America, Africa and Asia? The membership now is three times the number of countries which founded the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, and the vast majority of them — the Third World countries — do not have a single permanent member to represent them. However, we do not defend the right of veto. We do not believe that anyone should have it. But if it is not possible to eliminate it, we should at least attempt to ensure that this prerogative is more evenly shared, and provide that all new permanent members have the right of veto. Why, if the right of veto cannot be eliminated now, is it not restricted to votes on proposed measures under Chapter VII of the Charter?”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

2. “In a unipolar world, attempts to impose notions such as the limitation of sovereignty, and humanitarian intervention, do not advance international security: they pose a threat to the countries of the Third World, which have neither powerful armies nor nuclear weapons. Such attempts must therefore be brought to an end: they violate the letter and the spirit of the Charter. At the same time, we believe it is necessary to defend the United Nations, now more than ever. We defend the need for its existence as much as we do the need to democratize it. The challenge facing us is that of reforming the United Nations so that it serves the interests of all nations equally. We defend both the need for the existence of the Security Council and the need to make it more inclusive, democratic and transparent.”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

3. “That is why we so passionately defend respect for the principles of international law, which have guided relations among all of the world's countries for more than half a century. What would we have left to defend ourselves in the future if we poor countries were no longer able to rely on such principles as respect for sovereignty and self- determination, the sovereign equality of all States and non- interference in the internal affairs of other nations? How could we call on the international community to protest a threat against one of our countries if those principles, which are today systematically and flagrantly violated, were to be struck from the Charter of the United Nations?”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

4. “Why is there no mention of the deadly laser- guided bombs, the depleted uranium missiles, or the cluster or graphite bombs used indiscriminately by the United States in bombing the civilian populations in Kosovo? Could anyone claim that our children will inherit a just and secure world if we do not change the unfair and unequal standards that are currently used to measure issues of such key importance to our collective security? 14 Must we also accept the imposition of free market rules and the sacred law of supply and demand in the brutal commerce of death? What is stopping the international community from attempting, in a rational and coordinated manner, to redirect a large part of the $780 billion currently used for military expenditures to promoting development in the Third World countries?”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

5. “We are troubled to see that in a world dominated by a single military and technological Power, we are today less safe than during the difficult years of the cold war. If one day we wished to call upon the Security Council to discuss a situation that we viewed as a threat to one of our poor countries, does the Assembly think that we would be heard? I fear that recent examples have proved otherwise. Why is there no discussion in the Assembly about general and complete disarmament, including nuclear disarmament? Why is the issue limited to controlling small arms, which are necessary in a case such as that of Cuba — a country attacked and under blockade for 40 years?”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

6. “A small number of representatives in this hall represent countries that have no need to fear a military threat in the coming century. Some even have nuclear weapons, belong to a powerful alliance or build up their armies every year with better, more sophisticated weapons. They are the ones who view the rest of the world as merely the Euro-Atlantic periphery of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and therefore they will never have to endure the devastation of massive bombings by invisible attackers acting under what has come to be known as a new strategic concept of that aggressive military organization. But the vast majority of those of us gathered here today do not enjoy such security.”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

7. “They also know that it costs $12,000 to treat just one person infected with the virus, which means that it would take almost $300 billion a year for all the AIDS patients in Africa to receive the same treatment currently provided to AIDS sufferers in wealthy countries. Could my colleagues representing 6 billion of the planet's inhabitants — to which a further 80 million are added every year, almost all of them in the Third World — really think that a situation like this could continue unchanged into the next century? How can any of us prevent the continued growth in the number of emigrants from poor nations who flock to the wealthy countries in pursuit of a dream, while the current world order does not allow them to find the conditions for a decent life in their own countries?”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

8. “In this hall today we have representatives of countries where most of the population — which is hardly growing at all — are guaranteed decent living standards and where some live in opulence. These populations spend $12 billion on perfume and $17 billion on pet food every year. But there is a majority represented in this hall that has no reason to feel optimistic. This majority comprises 900 million people who go hungry and 1.3 billion who live in poverty. My brothers and sisters here today representing Africa have no reason to feel reassured. They know that today there are 23 million people on their continent who are HIV-positive.”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

9. “What can we say about the future of those whom we represent here who account for 80 per cent of the world's population, living in countries that were colonized and plundered for centuries to increase the wealth of the former metropolises? It is true that time has passed, and that our history is what it is and not what we might have wished it to be. But must we simply resign ourselves to a future that is essentially the same? Can we feel reassured knowing that the wealth of the three richest people in the world is greater than the combined gross domestic product of the 48 least developed countries, with their population of 600 million, whose representatives are present in this hall today demanding justice?”

   1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)

10. “In this Hall today are representatives of wealthy countries and also representatives of poor countries, who constitute the majority. There are ministers and ambassadors from countries whose per capita gross domestic product is $25,000 dollars, and others who represent countries where that figure is a mere $300 dollars. Moreover, that difference grows year by year. There are representatives of countries that appear to have a promising future. These are the countries with only 20 per cent of the world's population, but 86 per cent of its gross domestic product, 82 per cent of world export markets, 68 per cent of direct foreign investment, and 74 per cent of all of the telephone lines on the planet.”

    1999-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 54 (1999)