YouSaid · the spoken record

Jayakumar

lines on the record: 39
first: 1994-09-24
most recent: 1995-09-24
sittings or episodes: 2
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

“But Singapore also has structural vulnerabilities; it has resource limitations that prevent us from being fully developed as yet. Therefore, it is with a special perspective that we in Singapore observe the ongoing debates in and about the United Nations economic institutions. Sometimes we wonder: whose interests are really served by a prolonged debate, increasingly divorced from global economic reality? Is it the interest of those who want to preserve these institutions, or of those who would prefer to relegate them to some historical dead end? I do not have the answer to that question, but I raise it as one that merits urgent attention. I do not think there is much time left.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“So growth and stability are linked by a complex and subtle dynamic: an unrelenting search for an equilibrium between the rights of the individual, the claims of the community to which every individual must belong, and the no less urgent need for Governments to govern effectively and fairly. No balance between individual liberty and growth can be valid for all countries are for all time. Every society must find its own appropriate equilibrium in the context of its own historical and cultural experiences if the country is to progress. Singapore straddles the developed and the developing worlds. Our population generally enjoys a comfortable standard of living, and our economy has a relatively sophisticated service and industrial sector, performing global roles.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“This is important in any society. It has been one of the reasons for Singapore’s political stability and social cohesion. But Singapore does not hold itself up as a 24 model, although we are happy, and prepared, to share our experience with anyone who may be interested. No one can prescribe any particular model of political development for any country. Indeed, when this is attempted dogmatically, with only a superficial understanding of the complexities of specific situations, it leads to disaster. Our basic assumption is a fundamentally pragmatic and pluralist one — that there are no models that can be applied everywhere.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“So the clash and clamour of contending interests, street demonstrations and a rambunctious and abusive press may make for more exciting television for some Western audiences. It may even work for some countries. But more often than not it contradicts the second pillar of good government, which is long-term orientation. That requires the ability to resist populist and sectional pressures and, on occasion, administer bitter medicine to overcome economic challenges. Singapore’s experience has convinced us that the first duty of government is to govern, and also govern fairly. At times, this will require a firm hand. The third element of good government is social justice. There should be equal opportunities for all groups. If the Government is fair to all ethnic, religious and social groups, it will not be beholden to any special interest.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“There is also ample empirical evidence to prove beyond any doubt that economic growth requires political stability and good government. The terms “democracy” and “good government” are often used as if they were synonyms. Of course they overlap to a degree, but they are not the same thing. Singapore’s experience is that good government must be erected on three interrelated pillars: political accountability, a long-term orientation, and social justice. For long-term stability, Governments must govern with the support of the governed. Governments that do not deliver will not last. But this fact and the need for periodic free and fair elections do not prescribe any particular model of political system or ideology.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“But to deal realistically with this issue, the United Nations must set aside what has become a largely theological debate about the relationship between democracy, development and human rights — a phrase which has become part of the accepted language of development debates. But it is harmful and misleading if it implies an inevitable or simple linear causality. Of course, these concepts may well be linked in some way. But let us be clear that what we are really talking about is the relationship between democracy and human rights, on the one hand, and development, on the other. In other words, the causality is not linear, simple or inevitable. There is no question that repression is wrong and unhealthy and will stifle growth.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Developing countries that try to follow the East Asian model often fail, not because they do not know what the correct economic policies are, but because they lack the political underpinnings to make such policies stick. It is the government that will determine whether a country can plug into the fast moving global economy, or whether it will be bypassed. Therefore, an urgent and delicate problem is how the United Nations can help the least developed to build government and political institutions that will enable them to plug into the globalized economy for development, without intruding too brashly into their domestic affairs. Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter is still the basic cornerstone of the United Nations. A multilateral approach to this sensitive question may be more acceptable than crude bilateralism.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“But these institutions are correct to resist if, as is now all too often the case, the agenda is impractical and delves too deeply into matters of detail. Secondly, the new globalized international economy has challenged the belief that developing countries could grow simply by relaxing controls and privatizing. This is a necessary but insufficient condition. In all of the most successful developing countries, good, strong and stable government has always played a key role. The World Bank’s 1993 report entitled “The East Asian Miracle” reveals that the miracle was not so much a miracle after all. The secret was getting the macroeconomic fundamentals right. But that has been known for decades. Yet there has been no growth in much of the world. The difference was public policy.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Rule-based multilateral regimes are not just in the interest of small and weak States. The predictability and stability they confer benefits all of us. It will be increasingly uncomfortable and difficult for even the strongest to assert themselves unilaterally in a globalized economy where business, finance, trade and industry cannot always be neatly categorized along national lines. A blow aimed at an opponent’s chin may end up bruising one’s own shoulder. If the United Nations can develop consensus on an agenda, its relationship with the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization will naturally fall into place. It will clearly be their responsibility to flesh out and implement the global regimes on an agenda agreed to by the United Nations.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“A globalized economy urgently demands management precisely because it is rapidly moving beyond the control of even the most powerful. But it requires different management techniques. The day of the hegemonic manager of the international economic system is passing. In the new world economy, international order can be assured only by the development of rule-based multilateral regimes that define broad parameters for 23 economic forces that are not susceptible to micro- management. So the United Nations is the only universal international Organization with a Charter that gives it a mandate to range across the spectrum of issues that require attention. If the United Nations can find the political will and self-discipline, it will be potentially well placed, in our view, to develop a genuine consensus on an agenda for such regimes.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Layer upon layer of issues, some dating back to the 1960s and the 1970s, are added with every passing session of the General Assembly and conference. Their relevance to contemporary problems is dubious. What is very puzzling is that, in reality, most Member States have in actual national practice long since discarded the attitudes and policies which are still faithfully placed on the United Nations agenda and solemnly debated and discussed in an archaic annual ritual. United Nations economic bodies must therefore eschew the temptation to pretend to micro-manage international economic affairs by delving into the nitty- gritty of issues they sometimes imperfectly comprehend. But I do not advocate a completely laissez-faire approach.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“There is a need to impose a global coherence and discipline on the emerging international system built around regional economic groupings. This is not a function that can be performed by the Bretton Woods institutions or even the World Trade Organization. After all, the first reaction of Europe and the United States to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round was more assertive unilateralism. To play a role in forging such frameworks, the United Nations must find the political will to reach genuine consensus — not just on paper — on a realistic global economic agenda. But this will require self- discipline. When one reads the action plans and agendas of many United Nations economic bodies, it is sometimes a depressing exercise in political archaeology.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“It is managing shifts in relative positions of power. A way has to be found to contain the inevitable strains and stresses between the old rich and the newly affluent economies. Continuing tensions are debilitating and will slow growth for everyone. The goal is to shape an international order that will both optimize conditions for growth and facilitate the rescue of the least developed countries. There will be little attention paid to their needs if there is constant jostling and tension between the successful developing countries and the mature economies. There is therefore a need for overarching frameworks that can help manage relations between the successful developing countries and the mature economies.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“First, the process of rapid growth in some countries has caused political tensions between the successful developing countries and the mature Western economies. The latter have continued to grow, but more slowly and without significant increases in employment or improvements in real living standards. Job creation and job protection will certainly be high on the agendas of political leaders throughout the industrialized world for at least the next decade. There has been a concerted and sometimes very vocal effort to link economic issues to workers’ rights, human rights, social conditions and environmental standards. Developing countries view this as bad faith, feeling that the industrialized countries are using any pretext to hobble and handicap the developing world. The critical issue is not really the rights and wrongs of the case.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“The new globalized economy has sharply focused development issues that policy makers and theoreticians have grappled with for decades. The strictly economic debate over appropriate development strategies is over. Opting out is clearly not an option. It will only accelerate the pace of marginalization. However, it has become equally clear that the magic of the market is not enough. Only the United Nations can meet the two resulting political challenges. They are, first, coping with the political consequences of rapid but uneven economic growth and, secondly, helping the least developed to build the institutions that will allow them to plug into the globalized economy. Let me elaborate.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“We must forsake ideology for pragmatism and posturing for practicality in order to concentrate on a more focused and compact economic agenda. This will give the United 22 Nations the tools it needs to cope with the new kind of global economy that is emerging. The United Nations must emphasize its strengths, not its weaknesses. It is not the best forum to negotiate specialized and technical matters. Neither is the United Nations an executive body for matters of trade or finance; that role properly belongs to the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization. The strengths of the United Nations are political, which is a plus because the new world economy demands political as well as technical responses.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“When we speak of regionalization in the United Nations, we are referring primarily to the regional commissions, which, however, are entirely divorced from the important regional economic groupings. This is a symptom of a wider problem. At a time when most significant developments in the world economy are taking place outside the United Nations, one can legitimately ask what the role of the United Nations is in the new world economy. There is a danger that it will play no role at all unless it urgently takes stock of its current approach to economic issues. Saving the United Nations from being relegated to irrelevance requires an attitudinal shift that cuts across both North and South. Member States from both the North and the South must accept a new discipline.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Europe, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific region have responded in different ways, such as with the European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and, in a looser form, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Africa is also looking at its own regional economic groupings. These experiments represent some of the most significant developments in contemporary international relations. They may define a post-cold-war structure for international order in the next century. The United Nations, like its individual Members, is struggling to comprehend and catch up with the implications of a globalized international economy. But the United Nations has been more sluggish to respond than many of its Members.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Governments are and will continue to be key players in the world economy. But a model of sovereign States, interacting only at the margins of their existence, no longer adequately describes the contemporary world economy. Modern technology and communications have led to money, trade and investments flashing across borders in ways that Governments cannot control. This is redefining the very notions of resources, wealth and value. Therefore, we have to cope with a globalized international economy in which national actions are no longer adequate or effective, but in which, at the same time, Governments and States still cannot be disregarded.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“First, lack of a consensus on a post- cold-war strategic rationale for development is one important factor. Secondly, the endemic tension between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, a contest for power and control, is another factor. Thirdly, the failure of Member States, especially major contributors, to pay their dues in full and on time has created severe budgetary pressures on the United Nations to cut back development programmes. These, however, are only partial explanations. The key factor is the failure of the United Nations to respond to the central economic phenomenon of our time: the globalization of the international economy and the emergence of what has been termed a borderless world. For better or for worse, sovereign nation-States will be around for a long time to come.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Ten years ago the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) officially classified 36 Member States as least developed. Five years ago this number had risen to 42, and as of August this year there were 48 least developed countries. All forecasts project an even more skewed distribution of global income. The marginalization of more than a quarter of the membership of the United Nations in the world economy must surely be recognized as a serious problem. Those Members cannot be shunted aside indefinitely without provoking a major breakdown of international order. Yet today key development institutions are under attack. Indeed, the very role of the United Nations in the global economy risks marginalization. Why is this so?”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“They make quiet, unglamorous, but no-less-valuable contributions to human dignity and international order than do the Blue Helmets or the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Unfortunately, however, there is a limit to what the specialized agencies can do to help uplift the individual national economies. The latest United Nations World Economic and Social Survey announces the good news that the global economy has reached the cruising speed of 3 per cent growth. But for many countries this news is somewhat abstract and irrelevant to their day-to-day concerns. That same report speaks delicately of distinctions between robust, vulnerable and weak developing economies. This polite language only masks the continuing reality of degradation, poverty, misery, disease and death.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Poverty breeds conflict, but abject poverty makes a mockery of all civil liberties. Our Secretary-General’s Agenda for Development should give cause for all of us to reflect on the United Nations role in the world economy. Of the five decades of the existence of the United Nations, four have been dedicated to development. Vast sums have been expended, but with what result? Specialized agencies like the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the United Nations Development 21 Programme (UNDP) do not hit the headlines, but are the most successful institutions in the United Nations system.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“Allow me first to congratulate His Excellency Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, and Portugal, on his election to lead the General Assembly through this important fiftieth session. I should also like to record Singapore’s appreciation to his distinguished predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Amara Essy of Côte d’Ivoire. I also take this opportunity to thank our Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for his continuing dedication to the purposes of the United Nations. In recent years the United Nations has had much to do with peace-keeping and human rights. They are important matters, but the United Nations is not just about peace-keeping or human rights. International economic cooperation is one of the important purposes of the United Nations as defined by our Charter.”
1995-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 50 (1995)
“What better time than now, on the eve of our fiftieth anniversary, for us to place the United Nations on a sound financial footing and lay the foundation for it to embark on its programmes and activities for the next 50 years?”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“It is clear that any ad hoc, arbitrary or voluntary measures in this regard will have little chance of success given the fact that this is a highly sensitive issue. There must be a process of debate and discussion, however protracted it may be, before we can arrive at a consensus on a new scale. Singapore, for its part, is ready to pay more in peace-keeping expenses provided, first, that this is the outcome of an overall reform of the peace-keeping scale and, secondly, that the problem of those who are in arrears is seriously addressed. We have come a long way since the founding of the United Nations 49 years ago. It is now time for us to rededicate ourselves to the goal of creating a better world, as envisaged by our Charter.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“I believe these proposals can lead to concrete results in improving the financial situation of the United Nations and even lay the basis for the United Nations better to manage the difficult challenges of this new era. Singapore is fully committed to working together with the Secretary-General and Member States to resolve the financial crisis of the United Nations. It is expected that, with the rising costs for peace- keeping operations, one of the most heated arguments in the years ahead will be the apportionment of peace- keeping expenses among Member States. Singapore will strive, together with other Member States, to work out objective political and economic criteria for improving the scale.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“As spelt out in the Charter, the membership dues of a State Member of the United Nations are one of the few and most basic of the obligations of United Nations membership. Now, if a permanent member of the Security Council cannot even meet this basic obligation, how can it meet the heavy and serious responsibility of maintaining international peace and security on behalf of all Member States? We must establish the principle that the permanent members of the Security Council, with their privileged positions, should not be in arrears. They should in fact set an example for the rest of the United Nations membership in meeting their financial obligations. For the same reason, permanent members must continue to bear special responsibilities in the financing of peace-keeping. I hope Member States will consider our proposals seriously.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“In order to encourage timely payments, Member States should consider proposals already being discussed in United Nations circles, such as a system of charging interest on late payments, though with due consideration for the difficult situations of the least developed countries. We would also like to suggest that Member States use the symbolic event of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations to clear their arrears and start with a clean slate financially. Member States could undertake a joint commitment to pay up all their outstanding contributions to the United Nations before this symbolic day in 1995. The Security Council has a particularly critical role in the United Nations. The Charter confers upon it the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“Without our payments, the United Nations simply cannot function. Many Member States have failed to honour the legal and binding obligations that require them to pay their 15 assessments in full and on time. Obligatory and legitimate payments are unconditional and incumbent on all Member States. In fact, individual Member States have no reason to withhold or threaten to withhold contributions to the United Nations, as each Member State has the opportunity to present and argue its case for or against any United Nations activity. Each Member State also has the chance to scrutinize the budgetary implications of each decision and consequently to negotiate a consensus with other Member States as is the practice for all budgetary matters. But this is by now a tired mantra.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“Unfortunately, the Secretary-General had to again warn the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly in July this year of the dire financial situation of the United Nations, especially in peace- keeping. Unless we do something, these warnings will be repeated year after year. With the many multidimensional challenges facing the United Nations in the post-cold-war era, it is difficult to envisage how the United Nations will be able to carry out its functions effectively if it has to live from hand to mouth in this manner. It is time Member States seriously addressed the issue of financial resources and tackled it firmly once and for all. There is only one solution to the financial crisis of the United Nations: Member States must pay their assessments in full and on time.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“At a time when the United Nations is called upon to undertake and adapt to new and complex leadership roles in international peace and security, the persistent financial problems faced by our Organization have clearly to be addressed and overcome. The crucial point is that, having decided to launch a peace-keeping operation, Member States cannot allow it to fail, especially owing to lack of resources. The very credibility of our Organization would be questioned if we were to mandate the United Nations to take on new peace-keeping operations, and then watch them falter and fail because Member States are unwilling or unable to provide the requisite resources.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“These are but preliminary guidelines. It will be necessary to build upon, refine and modify them to best meet the evolving peace and security challenges of this new era. In many cases of intra-State conflicts, it is probably more effective to address the underlying causes of conflict and provide a foundation for socio-economic development. The root causes of many conflicts are socio-economic: the distribution of scarce resources and the lack of development. Hence, we may do better to concentrate on development aid, education, good governance and basic infrastructure-building to lay the building-blocks to create a civil society. Where appropriate, these measures should be accompanied and supplemented by preventive diplomacy. Peace-keeping operations are a palliative, not a substitute for solving the root causes of conflicts.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“Inevitably, however, the United Nations will need to establish guidelines and criteria, either formal or otherwise, to decide where United Nations involvement will be necessary and when it will be effective. The Security Council already appears to have taken steps in this direction. In a May 1994 statement, it agreed that the existence of a threat to international peace and security, and of a clear political goal reflected in a precise mandate, are factors which should be considered when establishing new peace-keeping operations. Other factors should include, inter alia, whether a cease-fire exists and whether the parties have committed themselves to a peace process intended to reach a political settlement. Significantly, the Security Council also asked that it be informed of the likely availability of resources for the new operations.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“On the other hand, others maintain that the United Nations is not ready to shoulder the implied responsibility, after getting involved in intra-State conflicts, of nursing a country back to the political stability and economic health which is, of course, necessary to prevent a repetition of famine, chaos and other troubles. Member States are coming round to recognizing that there are political, financial and institutional limitations to the United Nations. We cannot realistically expect the United Nations to resolve all forms of civil wars within national boundaries. For now, we have reverted to the more onerous but perhaps sensible approach of responding to situations on a case by case basis.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“These new challenges of dealing with intra-State conflicts, it would appear, will continue to be with us. The 1994 United Nations Development Programme report on the Human Development Index indicates that 79 of the 82 global military conflicts since 1991 were intra-State in nature. Can the United Nations, which represents the world’s conscience, avoid getting involved in such conflicts? On the one hand, the United Nations is criticized for not intervening in Rwanda in the earlier stages of the civil war. It is argued that if it had, we could have avoided the immense humanitarian disaster we now see in that country.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“International relations have for a long time been conducted in an inter-State system, with the overriding principle being respect of the sovereignty of independent nations. The main focus of the United Nations Charter 14 was and is on how the international community can respond to threats to peace and security issues between nation-States, as opposed to crises within a State. The world community and the United Nations in particular have relatively little experience to draw upon in managing intra-State conflicts and intra-State peace-keeping. The dilemmas faced by the Security Council in dealing with Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Rwanda, just to name a few, demonstrate that the United Nations is still evolving its approach on how to respond to these challenges.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“Secondly, there is the expectation that, freed of the past super-Power rivalry that had immobilized the United Nations, the United Nations will now be able to fulfil the aims of its founding fathers to create a better world. In the last few years, with these demands for United Nations action increasing manifold, the United Nations has had to grapple simultaneously with many trouble spots around the world. In its first 42 years of existence until 1988, the United Nations launched only 13 peace- keeping operations. But in the short space of the last six to seven years, it has seen 21 peace-keeping operations. Peace-keeping expenditures have also risen dramatically from the 1986 figure of about $350 million to $3.4 billion projected for 1994.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)
“First, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the President on his unanimous election. Like other colleagues who have preceded me, I am confident that he will guide us through this session effectively. Allow me also to place on record our appreciation for his predecessor, Ambassador Insanally, who presided over a very hectic and productive session. The end of the cold war has not led us to the end of conflicts. Instead, it has given rise to many internecine, intra-State ethnic and religious conflicts, bringing destruction, chaos and suffering in their wake. With the major Powers preoccupied with their domestic economic, political, social and other problems, the world has had no choice but to turn to the United Nations for help. Firstly, there is no alternative.”
1994-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 49 (1994)