Australia, 2003

To stand again at this

podium today, representing Australia as its Foreign

Minister, entering into the great conversation of

nations, is an unsettling experience. Seldom has this

31

forum been confronted with so many dimensions of

uncertainty, so many challenges to global peace,

security and orderly economic reform. Seldom has its

own capacity for regeneration to deal with them been

so insistently put to the test.

Conor Cruise O’Brien, one of Ireland’s finest

writers, an official and later ambassador here, famously

remarked:

“The cynicism necessary in the approach to

the United Nations must at some point be made to

yield to reverence: the reverence which is

appropriate to ... an institution which is

humanity’s prayer to itself to be saved from

itself.”

Recently one of Australia’s foremost novelists,

Frank Moorhouse, wrote a meditative essay on this

theme. In it he discerned a new pair of parallel world

orders:

“For the first time in our lives, there are two

very powerful agents in world affairs … the

United Nations Security Council … and the

United States.”

He noted that “for all the cynicism about the

futility of international intervention, pragmatically,

people are being helped daily by the United Nations”

and that “visionary and innovative international

missions” continue to be conceived and achieved

within it.

Moorhouse’s estimation of the significance of the

United Nations is debatable. But a combination of

pragmatism, vision and reforming innovation is

necessary if, as I have already warned, this

Organization is to avoid frittering away its credibility

and influence by failing to exercise its power

effectively.

In the words of Secretary-General Annan, we

should not shy away from the need to improve and,

where necessary, change the structure and function of

the United Nations and other international institutions

to make sure they remain effective in promoting

security and peace.

I alluded to the global challenges which confront

us. First among them is the emergence of the “age of

terror”. Where once it was possible to view terrorism

as the lamentable legacy of a few unsafe regions, today

almost no country has been left untouched. Despite the

war on terror — a war we are winning — terrorism

continues to be a scourge to which neither age,

nationality, religion or political affiliation provides

immunity. It takes a considerable act of imaginative

engagement to see these new forms of nihilism for

what they really are. They are a negation of civilization

and of the discourse that sustains it.

I referred earlier to the visionary and innovative

work which sometimes only the United Nations can do.

In that context, I want to pause to pay tribute to the

Secretary-General’s senior representative in Baghdad,

Sergio Vieira de Mello, well known to many of you

here. That such a man, engaged in such vital tasks —

along with so many of his colleagues — should have

been swept by a terrorist bomb into the silent

democracy of death epitomizes the struggle between

civilization and the unthinkable alternative.

We cannot allow terrorists to succeed in

determining the course of world events. We must

overwhelm their efforts to disrupt global security and

prosperity, to undermine democratic countries or

destabilize nation-building.

Terrorism has also created a new urgency in

solving a more familiar problem — the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction. Efforts by rogue States to

develop and traffic in weapons of mass destruction

materials underpin the priority we give to non-

proliferation. The possibility that weapons of mass

destruction might fall into the hands of terrorists makes

it an absolute imperative. Terrorism and proliferation

do not occur in a vacuum — except, of course, a moral

vacuum. It is no longer open to us to ignore the failed

States which have become their incubators or the

transnational crime on which they depend. The

promotion of good governance and democratization are

imperatives both morally and pragmatically. They have

become preconditions for international security.

Good governance serves both global and national

interests, as improved governance will fortify the

United Nations itself. Without it, developing States will

never be able fully to realize the opportunities that

globalization presents: chiefly, the potential to erase

divisions between themselves and the developed world.

That can occur only if we are all prepared to accept the

disciplines that global trade liberalization imposes.

While the prospects, post-Cancún, do not seem

particularly favourable, pursuing the Doha objectives

32

remains the best way to alleviate poverty and its

attendant ills in the developing world.

In confronting these challenges — such as

security, governance, poverty, terrorism and

pandemics — collective action is likely to yield the

best results, since not even the most powerful among

us can bear the burden alone. Effective regional action

also remains important. Australia has built, with its

neighbours, a network of bilateral counter-terrorism

arrangements. These enhance practical, operational-

level liaison among regional security, intelligence and

law enforcement agencies that have seen terror attacks

prevented, networks disrupted and terrorists arrested.

Similarly, we are developing regional approaches

to confront the dangers of State failure. Together with

our Pacific Island Forum partners, we are restoring

hope for a better future to the people of Solomon

Islands. This Regional Assistance Mission has already

made excellent progress in its efforts to restore law and

order and to rebuild the institutions of governance.

Requested by the Government of Solomon Islands and

supported and implemented by Pacific island nations,

the Mission is consistent with the United Nations

Charter’s original vision of strong regional efforts to

maintain international peace and security. Indeed, we

will continue to concentrate on improved standards of

governance, which are central to our assistance in our

own region. The Pacific Island Forum leaders recently

endorsed efforts to promote more effective regional

institutions and, where appropriate, the pooling of

resources to ensure that services are both deliverable

and sustainable.

The virtues of collective action are self-evident.

But collectivity ought not serve as a mantra which is an

obstacle to effective action. Sometimes the most

effective means of preserving security — and indeed

international law — occur alongside the traditional

mechanisms of multilateral diplomacy. Australia is a

strong supporter of multilateral institutions and

processes, but only insofar as they are a means to an

effective end.

The major global disarmament and non-

proliferation treaties remain critical to setting norms of

international order. But ultimately, those instruments

must be enforced. States are not merely entitled, but

obliged, to take action to uphold those norms,

especially when the transfer of weapons of mass

destruction outside internationally agreed frameworks

is involved. The conviction that States must uphold

international norms — particularly in relation to

weapons of mass destruction — led Australia to join

the coalition to disarm Iraq, and, in the same way, we

recently joined with others in what is known as the

Proliferation Security Initiative.

Australia believes the United Nations has a

critical role in promoting international peace and

security. First-hand experience in East Timor reminds

us of that fact, and we look to the United Nations for

continuing contributions to ensuring its stability.

Australia also appreciates the work of the United

Nations in rebuilding civil society in Iraq. Of the $100

million Australia has committed to humanitarian and

reconstruction assistance in Iraq, much has been

directed through United Nations agencies. Those are

two examples in which the United Nations is playing a

positive role.

Nevertheless, the role of the United Nations in

international affairs is under critical scrutiny, and with

good reason. The United Nations, through its Member

States, needs to do much more to adapt to the evolving

global environment. Australia has long been an

advocate of a more focused, efficient United Nations

system. The Secretary-General’s reforms to date — in

particular the Brahimi peacekeeping changes — have

been a valuable start.

Radical and fundamental change is now needed.

The Secretary-General rightly states that the General

Assembly is bogged down with an unwieldy agenda

and repetitive and sterile debates. We need to ask

ourselves, if much of the activity of the General

Assembly — or indeed of the Economic and Social

Council — did not occur, what practical difference

would it make, and would anyone notice?

Again, as Australia has long argued, the

composition of the Security Council is out of step with

geopolitical realities. The permanent membership of

the Security Council should be expanded to reflect the

current realities — with the addition of countries such

as Japan, India, Brazil, Indonesia and an African

nation.

We support an overhaul of the United Nations

architecture, particularly in the light of new security

threats. The functioning of all the major United

Nations organs needs to be re-examined, as does the

inter-relationship among them. Old shibboleths — such

as the excessive homage to sovereignty, even at the

33

expense of the preservation of humanity and human

values — should not constrain us. We must end absurd

duplication of effort. We should refocus the United

Nations on areas where it can and should make a very

real difference. But we must be imaginative and bold.

The group system, for example, needs

modernization. Australia could become part of an East

Asia and Pacific grouping, and the old divide of

Eastern and Western Europe should be dispensed with

to reflect the new, converging European reality. That

would form the basis for greater regional cooperation

within the United Nations system, for greater

engagement and problem-solving on a regional scale.

In short, we must work urgently on a bold

blueprint for revitalization, which we should consider

by the summer of next year. That is why we welcome

the Secretary-General’s proposal for a high-level

review panel. Real commitment to change — which

can be endorsed at a second San Francisco

Conference — will be necessary if the United Nations

is to rediscover its credibility and its promise.