Ambassador Dorda's speech in front of UN General Assembly

SPEECH GIVEN BY LIBYAN AMBASSADOR DORDA TO THE UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 25, 1997

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

E-mail to Ahmed Abuzed Dourda: lbyun@undp.org

Mr. President
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me, at the outset, to express to you on behalf of my country’s delegation, our warm congratulations on you election as President of this session. Your selection to this high post is a tribute, by the international community to your friendly country, and a reflection of the confidence of the members of the United Nations in your ability to shoulder this heavy responsibility. By the same token, we would like to express our great appreciation for your predecessor, Ambassador Razali Ismail, for the great efficiency with which he conducted the affairs and deliberations of the last session of this Assembly. Furthermore, I would like on this occasion to express the appreciation of my country's delegation to His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, for the unrelenting efforts he has made since his assumption of his post in enhancing the role, efficiency and effectiveness of the United Nations.

Mr. President,

Some people have thought that the end of the so-called Cold War would be conducive to the creation of favorable conditions for equitable and healthy international relations based on mutual respect, and fruitful and constructive cooperation among human communities. However, what the Secretary-General rightly describes as period of "frenziness" did not take long before blowing away their assumption, and havoc in several regions of the world. This "frenzy" is the product of the new uni-polar system where only on country sits alone on the top. This has emboldened that country to continue to spread its hegemony, expand the area and scope of its aggression, and the imposition of its conditions, seeing only its own interests, and ignoring the interests of others. It has even fought against the interests of its own allies. Those who exposed these trends, and refused to kneel (for anybody but God) were labeled "rouges".

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The end of the so-called Cold War deprived the world of that balance of power which had, in the past, provided an umbrella for all small, poor and weak countries. It has even protected other countries as well. The most important international requirement these days is to work seriously for the establishment of some sort of international balance, to preserve the little that has remained of states' independence, freedom of thought and action, and then to reverse the negative effects of uni-polarity, tyranny during the period of the "frenziness" which is still with us, although a little less intense.

This organization has been abused by the only super-power against certain peoples, states and even regions that have joined this organization in search of protection, security, peace and cooperation. The United States has managed to push the Security Council into adopting resolutions, outside its competence, against whoever said no to unilateral hegemony and to tyranny, and defended the independence of their countries and their ability to take free decisions and have free choices. These resolutions adopted during the climax of the period of "frenziness" and the beginning of this decade, were falsely described as consistent with international legality, when there was nothing "international" or "legal" about them. They were adopted through dictation, and threats to all concerned capitals at the time, and after their adoption.

Paragraph 102 and paragraph 103 of the Report of the Secretary-General on the reform process clearly and unequivocally show that these resolutions not only lack international legality or universality, but that they should be reviewed and rescinded.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Globalization which means only the imposition of the interests, language, culture, values and customs of the one and only power at the top, is not globalization. It is merely a crowning of the only power at the top as head of the entire world. Proof of this can be found in the great contradiction between words and deeds. They call for the liberalization of international trade, then enact legislation imposing one embargo after another on the movement of capital and goods, against those countries and peoples who want to remain independent and free of their decision-making. What was published in The New York Times today, 30 September 1997, about punishing a company of another country, an ally of America, because of its cooperation with Iran, is a stark evidence of what we are saying. They punish whoever cooperates with these peoples and countries from among the rest of the world. They are the ones who dictate economic embargo resolutions against countries and peoples and then unilaterally follow up their implementation.

Moreover, it is these same quarters that work to disarm countries and selectively destroy whatever weapons they have, allowing only themselves and their allies to manufacture, possess, and acquire armaments. The same quarters provide money, technology, and know-how to a select group of countries to establish and develop a military industry capable of producing all types of conventional weapons and even weapons of mass destruction, and if necessary, would send their armies and fleets to fight with them side by side. They call for the protection of human rights, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge human rights for anybody else but their own, as in the case of their denial of the right of Libyan citizens to a fair and neutral trial. It is the same country, which calls for the combating of terrorism, then goes on to label self-defense, the defense of Honor and the resistance against foreign occupiers, as terrorism. They call for democracy, then support and finance those who oppose democracy, especially if those who come to power are against the only super-power's influence in their country. Such examples of the contradiction between words and deeds, between propaganda and the executive policies and legislative positions of the same power, clearly show that the call for globalization is not intended for the good of the world. In reality the world reaps nothing but a name.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The African continent, which is considered the most under-developed part of the world at the end of the 20^th century, is not, in fact, responsible for its backwardness. A brief review of its history and a cursory look at its present state of affairs would readily show that all the problems Africa faces, be they problems of political instability in some parts, or economic under-development in most, if not all its countries, without exception, are caused by those who colonized it and drew the political borders of African countries. No single African country has drawn its own boarders with its neighbors. It was the colonial countries which did that, dividing tribes, clans, and communities among different countries, thus sowing the weeds, at an early time, of the current social tensions in many parts of the continent. This was a premeditated act, under the infamous "divide and rule" policy.

Not only did they draw the borders, but they also looted the natural resources which they now monopolize. Any country that dares to free its resources is quickly surrounded by embargoes. They use all financial and economic institutions, including the so-called international institutions in a manner that deprive these countries from any choice but to surrender to their conditions or face the consequences of confronting them. The responsibility for whatever happened and still happening in our African Continent should be shouldered by those who caused it in the first place. The slogan "Africa should help itself", though seemingly innocent, is misleading, because it involves an attempt at avoiding the responsibility for the consequences of those who have sown the seeds of all this in the not-so-distant past, and is still fresh in the memory of current generations.

Those who do care for Africa, do not impose conditions on assisting Africa. Africa is ready to cooperate with those who are willing to help, but cannot accept dealing with those who dictate to it.

My country would like to confirm that the position outlined by H.E. President Robert Mugabe, the distinguished President of Zimbabwe, and the current chairman of the Organization of African Unity, here in the General Assembly and also in the Security Council meeting devoted to Africa on the 25^th of September, is the position of all Africa and all Africans. From this rostrum, my country salutes President Mugabe, and confirm what he said that "Africa does not ask for charity from anybody". And we urge those who seek the permanent membership of the Security Council to remember Africa always, and not only when they need the votes of the African countries in the General Assembly to help them take over posts and seats in various councils and committees. We urge those and others to review the standards and criteria for their relations with Africa before it is too late.

Here, I would like to recall what one of Africa's leaders has said; fifteen years ago, his country used to export one ton of cocoa to import one tractor. But now, it has to export 12 tons of cocoa in order to import the very same agricultural tractor. This astronomical increase in the price of manufactured goods compared with the price of raw materials is a sufficient reply to the questions raised about the relationships of others with Africa in various fields. This very example explains some of the causes of the suffering in several African countries, at various levels. And here, we would like to say to both old and new colonialists alike: Keep your hands off Africa! And, Africa will know how to help itself.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The truth of what we have been saying all along on the Palestinian question has been proven to everybody. All of you have witnessed the practices of the Israeli occupation authorities in Palestine and the other occupied Arab territories, from the Golan to South Lebanon, or rather all of Lebanon. The Security Council held meetings to consider the situation in these territories but the American veto prevented the Council from taking any action. The General Assembly held a special session on the matter and what was the result? Nothing. This would explain what the region is facing these days and the dangers it will witness in the future.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Iraqi people are not only starving and dying, but they suffer from what is more serious than hunger and more dangerous than death. It has been known that some Iraqi individuals were forced to sell body organs such as kidneys to secure some food for their children. What kind of international legality can justify the continued application of sanctions that could lead to such results? How can any claims be accepted from those who pay lip service to "human rights"? They are only good at using this slogan to serve their political ends. How is it possible to allow the division of Iraq and the violation of the inviolability of its borders and its territory by foreigners and their armed forces? It is the United Nations who is responsible for this situation it created and for the conditions that provided the cover for what is happening in Iraq. It is incumbent upon the United Nations to rectify the situation that it has created.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

My country overlooks the Mediterranean, with a coastline that extends for about two thousand kilometers. That is why, we are keen on making the Mediterranean a lake of peace and cooperation for its coastal states. However, this is made impossible by the presence of foreign military bases and foreign fleets that undermine the region's stability and represent a constant source of danger. This presence has been a cause of our continued concern, specially that we have sacrificed half our population for our freedom. Three times a year, we celebrate the anniversaries of the evacuation of foreign troops from our country. Peace, stability and cooperation in the Mediterranean will only be possible once foreign military bases are eliminated and foreign fleets are withdrawn from its waters.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

My country, like the rest of the developing world, welcomes the international conventions aimed at the prohibition and elimination of weapons of mass destruction. We believe that this is in the interest of mankind as a whole. However, the resumption of nuclear tests, under any pretexts, is a great disappointment, as far as the international conventions concluded in this field are concerned, because they are violation of these conventions as well. The possession by Tel Aviv of nuclear weapons has put all the Eastern Arab region under a direct threat, exposing them to constant dangers and sure instability. Without the technical and financial support, and without the experts and scientists who were a part of this support, such weapons would have not been produced in the region. As is well-known, and as has been declared, tests are now being held on long range missiles which could deliver these weapons of mass destruction to their targets in Arab and Moslem lands alike. There are also tests being conducted on anti-missile rockets, as part of the strategic cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv.

In turn, all Iraqi weapons have been destroyed. Preparations are even being made to destroy all the weapons of the Arab and Moslems, who are helpless and their territories are occupied. Alliances are being forged to surround the Arabs and Moslems so as to prevent them from ever becoming powerful and to secure for Washington, their oil, their gas and their markets. This is the truth, bitter as it may be for us, Arabs and Moslems. My country would like to alert the world to the real sources of danger, no the imaginary ones, those being used to fabricate causes and pretexts to justify the destruction and recolonization of the rest of the world.

Neither Libya, nor Syria, Iraq, Iran or the Sudan constitute any danger, by any measure, to the security of anybody or the security and peace of the world. The real danger to international peace and security lies in Washington and Tel Aviv, and those who emulate them. Both possess and manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Both are exporters of weapons. While the other countries, I referred to, do not manufacture weapons and, moreover, have been prevented by America from importing any weapons. America has imposed an international arms embargo against these countries. Destroyed Iraqi weapons, and now prepares to destroy the conventional and even the obsolete weapons possessed by others. This is the American law that these countries did not obey, and thus were labeled "rouges".

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

We call for the transformation of the region of the Arab East into an area free from weapons of mass destruction which Tel Aviv does own. The plants that manufacture these weapons should be subjected to international safeguards and controls. We also call for investigating the financial and technical support which enabled Tel Aviv to produce these weapons and we must criminalize this support and those who provided it. The agreements of military strategic cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv are hostile instruments, targeting the region as a whole and its peoples. This fully exposes all American claims and arguments on the question of disarmament.

We are highlighting these points here to show the world the extent of the injustice to which we have been subjected and to what extent the United States is deceiving everybody.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you know, the United States used to have five military bases in our country and has monopolized the production and export of Libyan oil and gas. The United Kingdom, too, had a number of military bases in Libya and participated through its own company, British Petroleum, in the production and export of our oil.

With the advent of the revolution of the 1^st of September 1969, Libya evacuated the military bases of the two countries immediately and later liberated its oil wealth. But under the international conditions, which the Secretary-General has rightly called a period of "frenzy", the two countries believed that the time was ripe for a return to what they have been forced away from, to regain control of the 2000 kilometers long Libyan coastline, adjacent to the three old continents of Africa, Asia and Europe. And, once again, to control my country's oil, gas, and market, as well as neighboring markets. Once they finished with the Gulf War, they turned their eyes on Libya. But they were unable to find a pretext to realize their dreams of coming back to Libya except by resorting to allegations, which came to be knows later as the "Lockerbie" question.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

What is the real truth about Lockerbie? In brief, and in accurate terms, it is as follows:

Both the United States and the United Kingdom, know, more than anybody else that Libya has nothing to do at all with this airplane and the tragic and sad incident that killed its passengers and crew.

Both the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that two Libyans placed a time bomb in a bag on board a Maltese Airlines flight that took off from Malta, and that the bas was unaccompanied baggage. They claim that this bag, which was not accompanied by a passenger, was transferred in Frankfurt airport from the Maltese airplane to an American airplane whose destination was London. Once again, they say, this same bag was transferred again in London Airport from the airplane originating in Frankfurt to Pan Am flight 103, which later took off and exploded over Lockerbie.

Can you imagine how an unaccompanied bag can move by itself from one airplane to another and from one airport to another with utmost precision?

The Government of Malta investigated the matter and found out that there were no unaccompanied bags on the said flight and announced the results of the investigation at the time.
The competent authorities in Germany, in turn, investigated the question and found nothing to corroborate the story about the bag.
In any case, my country, despite the know objectives of its authors, dealt with this accusation with seriousness and pragmatism. We informed all concerned parties that we have started the application of the provisions of the 1971 Montreal Convention on the Punishment of Actions that Jeopardize Safety and Security of Civil Aviation. The legal authorities in Libya began exercising their legal jurisdiction in accordance with the above-mentioned convention.
My country asked the two countries concerned to hand over to the Libyan judicial authorities, the results of the investigations so they can be of use to the investigation. But this request for rejected.
My country, then asked the two countries to send investigators to Libya to participate in the investigation and once again they refused.
Moreover, my country offered to send its judicial officials to meet with the competent authorities in both the United States and the United Kingdom to peruse the file of this question. This offer was turned down.
Libya also offered to let a neutral party or parties to do the investigation. But the two countries refused that.
Once more, my country proposed that the United Nations should carryout the investigation. This was rejected by the two countries.
In a letter addressed to the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom and the United States Secretary of State by the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, my country proposed to invoke article 14 of the 1971 Montreal Convention. The two countries refused this.
Libya proposed resorting to the International Court of Justice, the proposal was turned down by the other parties. And when my country unilaterally took the case to the International Court of Justice, the two parties concerned quickly reversed the whole issue from a legal to a political one. They asked the Security Council to look into a case of two citizens of a developing Country in a five-year old case as if international peace and security were threatened. They took the case to the Security Council to prevent the International court of Justice from deciding the case since the matter was put before the Security Council. Despite the fact that Libya has had resorted to the International Court of Justice before the matter was referred to the Security Council.

This is how this legal question was politicized. This was done at the peak of the "frenzy" period on 21 January 1992, when at that time, nobody could say no to the United States. As is known, the Security Council, under the familiar and frankly well-recognized pressures, adopted resolution 731 (1992) which did not stipulate any surrender of the suspects, but requested response to the demands of the countries concerned.

My country has fully responded to the provisions of the resolution by cooperating with the United Kingdom on the question of the Irish Republican Army, and the French investigating judge, in all his demands. And furthermore, it accepted a trial be undertaken for the two Libyan suspects by a fair and neutral court.
The aim of both the United States and the United Kingdom has not been to uncover the real culprit in this regrettable and tragic airplane incident. They already know who is the responsible party. The real objective has been to use the whole issue including the human blood that was shed, to achieve their own political objectives. To achieve this, they exploited the Security Council once again, pushing to adopt resolution 748 (1992), imposing an almost total embargo on Libya and its dealings with the rest of the world. In the same way, the Council adopted resolution 883 (1993), complementing resolution 748 (1992).
In the face of all this intransigence and arrogance, and when all efforts and mediations failed in convincing the two countries concerned, to opt for dialogue and negotiations, and since they had earlier unilaterally severed their diplomatic relations with my country, and because my country has no extradition treaty with either of the two countries, we restored to regional and international organizations. Today, we would like to put on records, as always, our deep appreciation to these organizations for their support, let us recall that they represent more than two-thirds of the international community.

We hasten to confirm that the other third is not against us, but simply is not a member in these organizations. The League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Non-Aligned Movement, all have supported my country and expressed their appreciation for my country's flexibility in the way we have handled the issue as well as for the positive initiatives it has proposed.

The League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity through the Harare Summit, under the chairmanship of President Robert Mugabe have proposed the following:

The trial of the two suspects in a neutral country to be determined by the Security Council.
The trial of the two suspects by Scottish judges, under Scottish law, at the seat of the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The establishment of a special criminal tribunal to try the two suspects at the seat of International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Both the Secretary-General of the Arab League and the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity came to the United Nations headquarters with resolutions of their respective organizations in hand, which are supported by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. They submitted these resolutions to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the President of the Security Council and its member states. And what was the reaction of the United States and the United Kingdom? Both rejected the requests made by other members of the Council, and used the Council's work mechanism, the so-called "consensus" to reject all proposals submitted by their Majesties and Excellencies, the Kings and Presidents of the two organizations. Naturally, this was a shock to both organizations because they were fully ignored.
On the 25^th of September 1997, during the Ministerial Meeting of the Security Council on Africa, this question became a major issue of the forum when President Robert Mugabe, the distinguished President of Zimbabwe, and current chairman of the OAU, raised the issue in his address to the Council. Once more, I wish, on behalf of the Leader of my country and on behalf of our people, to express our gratitude to President Mugabe for his honorable defense of the concerns and causes of Africa, and in particular, his defense of my country on this question.

This issue was also raised by His Excellency Mr. Salam Ahmed Salem, Secretary-General of the OAU, and by most of the Foreign Ministers of the Council. As we express our gratitude to all of them, we wish to confirm that their support would have never been that forthcoming had we been wrong.

A week ago, the Council of the League of Arab States decided to call on Arab States to ease some of the impacts of the sanctions imposed on my country. We are grateful to the Council and to all our brothers. We know and realize that this is a step in the right direction and that it is a very mild reaction to their being ignored last July.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

We ask you for justice. Members of the Security Council are not against us. They have expressed that in all our meetings with them. They also added that our problem is with the United States and the United Kingdom. This means, ladies and gentlemen, that we are in a dispute with the judge. How can anyone expect the Security Council to solve the problem when our adversaries are both permanent members of the Security Council, with the weight of the United States and the United Kingdom, and who both possess the veto power? In other words, they are the judge and jury?

Once again, to confirm that our problem is with the United States and the United Kingdom. We have no problem with the Security Council and the Security Council has no problem with us. Had the two countries concerned accepted the proposals of the regional and international organizations and showed respect for the states members of these organizations, their Presidents and representatives, the Security Council would not have hesitated for one moment to accept them. This is what we were told by members of the Council. We are not just saying that.

My country calls on you to intervene so we can reach a peaceful solution to this dispute, one that would accelerate the holding of the trial for the two suspects before a fair and just court, in a climate free of prior condemnation of the two suspects, in any place to be agreed upon or to be decided by the Security Council.

The two suspects were advised by their Scottish and American lawyers against accepting a trail before any court in Scotland or the United States. Why? Because of the intensive media campaigns, statements by officials in the two countries which created a climate and a public opinion that convicted them in advance of any trial. This does not conform with their human rights to receive a just and fair trial. The fact that the American federal government has accorded Timothy McVeigh, the accused in the Oklahoma explosion, the right to move the venue of his trial from Oklahoma where the crime occurred, to another state, namely Colorado, reflects a respect for human rights. This respect should not be limited to the citizens of the United States. Surely human rights should be enjoyed by all human beings irrespective of their nationality. Human rights should not be accorded to some and denied to others.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

My country, at all levels of responsibility, has repeatedly condemned terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, and disassociated itself from all suspected terrorist practices. We have also asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Security Council to send a committee or envoys to ascertain our declarations on the ground.

But the refusal of the United States and its objections prevented the Secretary-General and the Security Council from responding to our requests. This is one of the reasons why we have strong suspicions about the true intentions of the United States against my country. This has also exposed its political objectives, for the attainment of which it would not hesitate to use even human blood.

We call on the international community, represented in this august assembly, to work towards reaching a solution as soon as possible.

The blocking by the United States of closing this side issue, namely, the "terrorism" is aimed at serving the objectives of that country, objectives we have already referred to. It is obvious that everybody knows that the United States is the one who committed terrorist acts more than once against my country, using its fleets and its bombers. The most heinous of these acts was the barbaric raid on the night of 15 April 1986 against the residence of the Libyan Leader, his office and other residential neighborhoods in Tripoli and Benghazi. This raid killed tens of children, women, and elderly in their sleep at 2:00 am local time. The United States cannot produce one piece of evidence in support of the so-called Libyan terrorism, whereas Libya has tens of proofs of the terrorism perpetrated by the United States against Libya.

The raid made on the night of 15 April 1986 is not a suspected perpetration of an act, as is the case with our citizens being suspected by the United States. The raid of 15 April 1986 was a real one; a crime that actually took place. It is an established fact whos consequences can be still seen, even today, in the tombs of the martyrs in the famous El-Hani Cemetery, and in the remnants of the buildings still clearly showing the marks of bombs and missiles. And if all of this is far away in Tripoli and Benghazi, I am here before you and I can personally be a proof of the terrorism of the United States. The scars here on my face and on my head and on other parts covered by my clothes, are the result of a bomb which an American bomber dropped on my house, which was totally destroyed on the night of 15 April 1986. My young son, who was less than ten years old, was also injured. I am not here only as a representative of my country to the United States, but can also be a proof of the state terrorism of the United States against my country.

We the victims of the American raid resorted to the American judicial system bringing a legal suit before an American court, here in the United States. Despite all evidence, the American judicial system rejected to hear our case. This negative experience with the American judiciary would surely discourage anyone to accept a trial by such a judiciary, specially if the opposing party was the American Administration. I, personally, brought a legal suite - I have two American lawyers. My house was completely demolished and erased from the map of Tripoli altogether. The scars are still on my face and yet my case was rejected. How do you want us to trust this judicial system? We cannot forget that crime, and will always call for those who decided, planned and implemented it to appear before competent Libyan courts for trial because this crime took place in Tripoli and Benghazi. Aren't our citizens equal to theirs? What they claim about our two citizens is mere suspicion, while their raid was real and was shown on American television.

Mr. President,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

We believe that the reform of the United Nations is highly important. However, the optimum results of this reform effort could not be achieved, unless the financial situation of the Organization is put on the right track, and the richest member states were, in the first place, ready to pay their assessed contributions. The fact that the United States has not met is contractual commitments towards the United Nations, by not paying its arrears to the budget, is the cause of the financial crisis from which the Organization has been suffering for years. If the United Nations is to be reformed, this state must pay all its arrears to the budget, is the cause of the financial crisis from which the Organization has been suffering for years. If the United Nations is to be reformed, this state must pay all its arrears without any conditions, and promise to pay, in the future, on time and without pressures that aim at making the United Nations a hostage of the will and policies of that country. We are aware that they are now calling on some member states to pay 5 percent of their assessment. This has not been achieved. These are the pressures of the one sitting on the top. This is what we are saying and alerting the world to. We would have not known had we not been informed by those who were asked to pay the 5 percent. Telling us, the Libyans, in particular, means that they are not happy and oppose it, but at the same time are unable to refuse.

Within the framework of the reform process, it is essential to have a complete review of the situation of the Security Council. By virtue of our experience with the Security Council, we know and appreciate the importance and the necessity of reforming the Security Council and expanding its membership. First, the reform should focus on improving the methods of work of the Council, making it impossible for any country to hamper the work of the Council or making the Council irrelevant, and making the United Nations also irrelevant as a result. My country, which a quarter of a century ago, has raised the banner of the call for abrogating the veto privilege, would like to reiterate that any reform of the Security Council without rescinding the privilege of the veto, would be meaningless. There is not longer any historical or objective reasons for maintaining this power. It is not justifiable, under standards of righteousness, justice and equality, and even the standards of democracy to which certain countries pay lip service. At the same time, we believe that the reform process would not be useful if it did not take into consideration the interests of all countries and peoples.

That is why my country supports whatever cause that would do away with the present imbalance in the membership of the Security Council. In this respect, we would like to underline the need to adhere to the proposals of the Non-Aligned Movement which are based on full sovereign equality among the states, seek to apply the principle of the equitable geographical distribution, and respond to the demands of the developing countries that represent the majority of the members of the United Nations.

The General Assembly is the United Nations organ where the universal and the democratic character of the international organization is embodied. Since it is the only inter-governmental body with a mandate to discuss any question or matter under the Charter, including the maintenance of international peace and security, my country would like to underline the wide-ranging repeated calls for the need to invigorate the General Assembly and enhance its powers, in a manner that would give it more effectiveness in confronting the ever-changing challenges that face the international community.

Thank you, Mr. President

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen

Who is Abuzed Dorda ?

E-mail to Ahmed Abuzed Dourda: lbyun@undp.org