Australia, 1997

Let me begin by

congratulating Mr. Udovenko on his election as President

of the General Assembly at this fifty-second session. The

country and the Group he represents have seen great

changes in the last decade. It therefore seems particularly

fitting that he is presiding over a General Assembly

which will lay the foundation for significant changes to

the United Nations itself — changes which must equip it

better for the new and potentially more cooperative

international environment in which we find ourselves.

It is thus not only right but necessary that reform is

the major theme of the United Nations at present, and of

this General Assembly in particular. We would like to

thank the former President of the Assembly, Ambassador

Razali, for the outstanding contribution he made to

pursuing the reform agenda during his presidency, notably

16

in his capacity as Chairman of the General Assembly

Working Groups.

Today I want to concentrate on three issues in

particular: reform of the United Nations; reorienting our

approach to human rights so as to promote cooperation and

institution building, creating durable structures to give

substance to the goals set out in the Charter of the United

Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

other international human rights instruments; and

reconfiguring the traditional United Nations groups better

to reflect the regional groupings of the contemporary world.

In dealing with reform, my purpose is to build a world

for the next generation, and I am inspired by the hope and

aspirations of the next generation.

In that context, I am pleased that we are joined in the

General Assembly today by Mr. Perry Cross, a

distinguished and courageous young Australian who is

leading the fight against paralysis. He exemplifies the

Australian belief that individuals with a will and a practical

focus can make a difference in fighting barriers and

reforming structures which are representative of an earlier

era.

Australia wants to work with you, Sir, and with the

Secretary-General and all Members of the United Nations,

to ensure that by the end of this session of the General

Assembly further, substantive progress has been made in

the three critical areas of reform: financial reform and

resolution of the crisis surrounding the United Nations

budget and scale of assessments; reform of the Security

Council; and reform of the Organization.

When I made my first statement to the Assembly last

year, I stressed the need to move ahead urgently with

reform and the reinvigoration of this important

Organization, to ensure its future effectiveness and

relevance. This year reform has been given real impetus by

the new Secretary-General, whose appointment Australia

warmly welcomed. Both in March and in July this year he

announced significant organizational reforms aimed at the

renewal of this body. I have enthusiastically supported these

initiatives. We must now build on them.

We share the Secretary-General’s conclusions about

the shortcomings of the United Nations. The Organization’s

mission, as enshrined in the Charter, has been repeatedly

reaffirmed and remains valid today. But the machinery and

the working methods to pursue that mission need thorough

review and revision. We agree that there is too much

fragmentation of structures, too much rigidity within

bodies and too much emphasis on bureaucracy and

process.

I would like to highlight in particular the reforms

suggested to the United Nations structure and to the

Secretariat. The integration of 12 secretariats and entities

into 5, and the proposed consolidation of five

intergovernmental bodies into two are particularly

welcome. They will help streamline and remove

unnecessary bureaucratic structure and duplication from

the Secretariat. It is an approach we commend also to the

specialized agencies as Member nations seek to streamline

and even merge some of these bodies.

Important steps are proposed in reforming the way

the Secretariat works. We applaud the removal of 1,000

staff posts and the cutting of administrative costs by one

third to which the Secretary-General has committed

himself. We also wish to see all Secretariat staff move to

fixed-term, renewable contracts to allow for greater

employment flexibility in the Organization. We support

the introduction of a merit-based promotion system and

performance appraisal in the place of a system where

seniority plays a disproportionate role. We also encourage

management to improve training opportunities for junior

as well as senior staff.

These reforms will not only make the United

Nations work better, but also provide real savings. These

savings will be available for programmes, programmes

which benefit all of us, but especially support the

developing Members of the United Nations. Thus it is a

package which is in the interests of all, and deserves

support from all. We believe the Assembly needs to

provide broad endorsement of the package as a whole

early in this session to allow the reform process to

proceed, even if some details are negotiated subsequently.

But I acknowledge that for reform to succeed and

for the United Nations to carry out its mandate adequate

resources must be made available to run the Organization.

Australia continues to meet all its financial obligations in

full and on time and without conditions, and seeks the

same commitment from all our fellow Members. We

continue to believe that the negotiation of financial

reforms would be facilitated by early settlement of all

unpaid contributions. The adoption of a responsible negative-

growth budget and a new scale of assessments which

accurately reflects relative shares of national income and

thus the principle of capacity to pay will also be key

issues at this year’s session. It is important that the result

17

ensures the burden of supporting the Organization falls

fairly on Member States.

Australia remains committed to an expanded, more

representative and transparent Security Council, better able

to tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century. It

should include as permanent members important Powers

able to make a major contribution to international peace and

security, particularly at this time Japan and Germany. It

should also include permanent seats for under-represented

regions as well as additional non-permanent seats.

Middle Powers such as Australia have made a

significant contribution to the United Nations since its

foundation, notably in disarmament, development,

peacekeeping and human rights. We are concerned that the

interests of small and medium-sized countries not be

forgotten in this exercise. In this context, and because of

our long-standing historical concerns about the veto, we

would like to see an expansion of the Council accompanied

by a new understanding on the application of the veto. We

would also support a review of any new arrangements after

10 years so that countries like Australia and all other

members of the international community have a further

opportunity to examine the size, composition and working

methods of the Council.

I am optimistic about what can be achieved by the

United Nations if we can bring about some essential

reforms which would make the Organization function more

efficiently and effectively. Let me mention one of the areas

in which the United Nations has proven it can function

effectively: as a forum and catalyst for international arms

control and disarmament efforts.

In recent years we have witnessed several landmark

developments in this field, notably the indefinite extension

of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

and the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban

Treaty. The General Assembly was the forum, one year

ago, for the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-

Ban Treaty, and Australia is particularly proud to have been

able to play a role in that historic event.

There are many challenges ahead as we work with,

and through, the United Nations to reduce global stockpiles

of conventional and non-conventional weapons and to make

the world a safer and more humane place. Let me single

out two. The immediate commencement and early

conclusion of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off

treaty has repeatedly been identified by the international

community as the next major goal for nuclear non-

proliferation and disarmament efforts, most recently by

the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty —

which now has more members than the United Nations

itself — at their first preparatory meeting for the sixth

Review Conference in 2000.

The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of

Nuclear Weapons also identified an agreement to cease

the production of fissile material for nuclear explosive

purposes as an important step towards the elimination of

nuclear weapons. Capping the amount of nuclear material

available for nuclear weapons use by extending

safeguards coverage over currently unsafeguarded,

sensitive nuclear facilities would in itself be a significant

achievement for international peace and security, quite

apart from its significance as a step towards the ultimate

elimination of nuclear weapons.

As I said to the Committee on Disarmament in

January this year, the achievement of a fissile material

cut-off treaty is a priority objective for Australia, and I

now commit Australia to redoubling its efforts to achieve

a cut-off treaty at the earliest possible date. We must not

allow ourselves to be put off by the obstacles that

currently face the achievement of this goal.

The effective elimination of landmines as a weapon

of war is another important task facing the United Nations

collectively and its members individually. I have been

gratified by the gains made to date, through the Ottawa

process, through the Inhumane Weapons Convention,

through national and regional measures and, perhaps most

important, through enhanced contributions to demining

and mine-victim assistance programmes to address the

terrible human toll of anti-personnel landmines. We owe

it to the victims of anti-personnel landmines to continue

working through all avenues to achieve a real and lasting

solution to the global landmines problem.

The elimination of landmines is one necessary step

in creating a more humane world, a world where

individual human rights can demand proper respect. But

further measures need to be taken involving the

establishment of durable national human rights institutions

to advance the goals to which our international human

rights treaty commitments aspire. We are encouraged by

and support the proposal to integrate human rights issues

more fully into a range of United Nations activities. In

our view, the linkages between respect for human rights,

good governance and sustainable development are

important. The fact that all four Executive Committees

established by the Secretary-General will take human

18

rights issues into account in their deliberations should

ensure that more effective coordination is possible across

United Nations activities. We warmly welcome also the

steps taken by the Secretary General to reform and

reinvigorate the Secretariat’s organizational structure to

support human rights, particularly the consolidation of the

Office of the High Commissioner and the Centre for

Human Rights into a single office. His appointment of the

former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, as High

Commissioner for Human Rights is an excellent choice. We

pledge ourselves to support her in her task.

Another important recent development at the

international level has been the negotiation of a draft statute

for an international criminal court. Australia is strongly

committed to the early establishment of the court as a

major human rights objective. We urge all nations to

support by consensus the proposed resolution at this

General Assembly calling for the convening of a diplomatic

conference in June 1998 to finalize and adopt the statute of

the court.

As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we pay tribute to

the universal standards the Declaration has helped to

establish. Let us never forget as well that the Declaration,

along with the two International Covenants, and the whole

body of treaty law and practice that has since developed,

was reaffirmed by all nations at the Vienna World

Conference on Human Rights in 1993.

Australia is a nation committed to the advancement of

human rights and regards human rights issues as integral to

its diplomacy. However, the Australian Government does

not want the important area of human rights to become an

unproductive battleground or an environment for

sloganeering. What we seek is results, not rhetoric, with the

outcome being genuine improvements in human rights. The

real basis for a sustained improvement in the quality of

human rights needs to be through domestic reform founded

on working institutions that guarantee participation and

accountability. Reform of the institutions of civil

governance must come from within. It is not something that

can be imposed from outside, for if there is not the political

will and the people with the knowledge and a commitment

to making those institutions work, then they will simply

founder. Almost all nations have dark moments in their

history where abuses have occurred, where vigilance has

failed. Abuses and corruption are most likely to disappear

when there are institutions established to bring light into

this darkness.

All too often, however, instead of working patiently

to encourage and help others to build these institutions,

countries have tended to address issues of human rights

by criticism alone. There is no doubt that in the 52 years

since the United Nations was established the world has

witnessed many egregious and vile acts committed for the

most inhumane of reasons, and deserving the strongest

condemnation. However, the condemnatory approach

alone has only limited practical value.

We need to recognize that in practical terms

protecting human rights must primarily be done at the

national level. The international human rights system,

which we have worked hard to build, inevitably has a

broad focus and a limited ability to assist States to

implement agreed standards. Regional human rights

mechanisms also have a role, and we should do what we

can to encourage their establishment and strengthening,

including in the Asia-Pacific. However, it is clear that the

ability of each State effectively to protect human rights

depends to a significant degree on the strength of its own

institutions, including a representative legislature, an

accountable executive and an independent judiciary. A

vigorous civil society is another important element in

creating a culture of human rights.

A critical element that has often been undervalued in

the national implementation of human rights standards is

the importance of effective institutions as a means to

achieving good governance. It is this institution-based

good governance that offers a real hope of eradicating the

randomness and violence that can characterize systems

where there is neither popular participation nor genuine

accountability.

Good governance creates the environment in which

civil and political rights are respected and protected. Good

governance also promotes an environment for sound

economic management and sustainable use of resources to

increase prosperity. These conditions are important to the

protection of economic, social and cultural rights.

At the same time, the exercise of civil and political

rights through participatory processes is essential to good

governance because it helps ensure governmental

accountability and effectiveness. The interlinkages are

such that action in one area of human rights has a

positive reinforcing effect on other dimensions of human

rights, making all human rights indivisible.

Accountability, participation and effective institutions are

three fundamental principles necessary for the protection

of human rights.

19

It is with all this in mind that Australia gives priority

to institution building in the human rights field. One of the

most significant developments in recent years has been the

spread of national institutions for the promotion of human

rights. Such institutions, able to work with Governments

and civil society, can reflect to a significant degree the

different cultures and local conditions of the societies in

which they are established, while remaining consistent with

international human rights standards. Moreover, it is worth

noting that the General Assembly has endorsed a set of

minimum standards for such institutions — the so-called

Paris principles. Despite considerable early scepticism,

recent experience has been very positive, and many

Governments and non-governmental organizations are now

looking positively at independent national institutions as an

important means to promote and protect human rights. The

generally positive view of the work of national institutions

held by most States was reflected in the adoption by

consensus of Australia’s resolution on this subject at this

year’s session of the Commission on Human Rights, with

an increased number of co-sponsors.

Developing countries are showing rapidly increasing

interest in establishing or strengthening existing national

human rights institutions, as a constructive way to take

positive action at the national level, bearing in mind

national circumstances, to promote respect for human

rights. Important examples of human rights institutions

recently established in my part of the world that are making

a difference on the ground include those in India and

Indonesia. I was encouraged recently by the statement of

Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister that he intends to

press ahead to establish a human rights commission in the

near future.

We will also watch with expectation the development

of the proposed Cambodian national human rights

commission. A credible and independent human rights

commission, along with a genuinely independent national

electoral commission, could make an important contribution

to protecting stability and promoting the observance of

human rights in Cambodia in the lead-up to what we

strongly hope will be free, fair and credible elections in

May next year.

The work of national institutions in individual

countries can be strengthened through subregional and

regional arrangements which provide a framework for

exchanges of views and experiences. Australia is a strong

supporter of the development of such arrangements in the

Asia-Pacific region. Since an inaugural meeting in Darwin

in 1996 there has been a steady consolidation of links

among established and emerging Asia-Pacific human

rights commissions. The 1996 meeting saw the

commissions of Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and

India — later also joined by the Philippines — establish

a regional network of human rights commissions, the

Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights

Institutions, with a supporting Secretariat based in and

financed by Australia.

The aim of this network is to strengthen cooperation

among national human rights institutions, including

through information sharing, staff exchanges, technical

cooperation and an annual regional meeting. It also assists

other regional Governments wishing to establish such

institutions. The most recent regional meeting has just

been held, in New Delhi. It attracted participation from

the founding human rights commissions as well as that of

Sri Lanka. Other regional countries from Asia and the

Pacific attended as observers, some of which are

considering the establishment of their own human rights

commissions.

A most effective area of United Nations operations

in this field has been the work of the Special Adviser to

the High Commissioner for Human Rights on National

Institutions, Regional Arrangements and Preventive

Strategies. The United Nations work with a number of

Governments, including in our own region, is at an

important stage. Australia was therefore pleased to

provide additional financial support this year to enable the

United Nations to continue to support national institutions.

We welcome the Secretary-General’s commitment in

his report on the work of the Organization to

strengthening cooperation on issues of democratization

and good governance. We note his comment that

“This past year has seen a dramatic increase in

activities relating to the establishment of national

institutions for the promotion and protection of

human rights.” (A/52/1, para. 30)

We are heartened by this development and by the

responsiveness of the Secretary-General. His report

clearly reflects the need I am stressing here for support

for national institution-building to be at the centre of

United Nations human rights endeavours.

Earlier this year I announced the establishment in

Australia of a Centre for Democratic Institutions. This

Centre will be devoted to the provision of practical

support for the consolidation and strengthening of

20

democratic institutions in developing countries included in

Australia’s aid programme. It exemplifies a cooperative

rather than a conflict approach towards promoting human

rights, and it will be the flagship of our good governance

initiatives. The focus of the Centre’s training programmes

will be on electoral, parliamentary, judicial and human

rights institution-building and the processes by which

broader society, notably the media and community groups,

can contribute to democratic decision-making. It will also

facilitate visits and secondments of appropriate participants,

such as Parliamentarians, senior administrators and other

influential persons to relevant Australian organizations.

While human rights remain at risk, our values are

compromised and international stability is jeopardized. The

protection of human rights to promote the dignity of the

individual is too important a matter for symbolic gestures

alone. It is only through the pursuit of practical and

effective efforts to promote human rights that we show our

real commitment to the welfare of individuals and society.

And it is vital to such practical outcomes that we orient our

approach to human rights to emphasize cooperation and the

creation of durable structures.

If I may stay briefly with the subjects of practical

outcomes and durable structures, the nations of the world

are facing today the threat of climate change and will need

to agree later this year in Kyoto on sustainable responses to

that threat. At the recent South Pacific Forum, Australia,

along with other Forum countries, acknowledged deep

concern about the impact of increasing concentrations of

greenhouse gases on rising sea levels and changing weather

patterns, especially low-lying islands. Australia, along with

others, is working hard to ensure that the Kyoto meeting

delivers a sustainable environmental outcome. We stand

ready to play our part, although, as we have made clear in

these negotiations, we have no intention of imposing upon

Australians an unfair and disproportionate cost in

addressing this global problem.

Before concluding, I should like to address the third

and final reform issue I said I would be raising. Australia

believes there is an element missing in the present

discussion on reform. I am referring to the existing electoral

group system, which dates back to the last major reform of

the group system in 1963. Since the size of the United

Nations has nearly doubled since 1963, mostly with new

nations from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, this issue needs

to be addressed again.

The present configuration contains many conspicuous

anomalies and inequities which constitute powerful

arguments for reform. The substantial disparities in the

size of the various groups and the inadequate level of

representation available to the many subregions, including

in our own geographic region of East Asia and the

Pacific, has long been an evident source of frustration.

Comparisons between the size of the African and East

European Groups — embracing 53 and 21 members,

respectively — demonstrate the legitimacy of

dissatisfaction with the status quo in this regard.

This widespread sense of under-representation is

exacerbated by the social and political diversity of the

larger groups and the limited extent to which a single

member can be said to represent the group as a whole.

While we have our own ideas, Australia does not believe

it would be helpful to prescribe any rigid formula for

reconfiguration of the group system. We acknowledge this

is a sensitive issue on which there are many views. But

I believe it is time we began to think about and discuss

this matter, as we seek to equip the United Nations for

the future.

Ultimately, reform of the United Nations means one

thing. It means a more efficient organization capable of

delivering practical outcomes to the people of the world.

If we are to achieve that reform, then we must focus on

cooperation, not conflict. We must build institutions

which will guarantee effective vigilance, and above all

else we must have the courage to abandon the ideas and

structures of the past and embrace the changes which

bring the future.