Belgium, 1994

It is with great pleasure that I join the previous speakers

in congratulating you, Sir, on your election to the

presidency of this Assembly. The great African country

that you represent, Côte d’Ivoire, has always played an

active and constructive role in our Organization. We are

delighted to have you presiding over our proceedings.

8

My German ministerial colleague, Mr. Klaus Kinkel,

spoke this morning on behalf of the European Union. The

views of my delegation are faithfully reflected in his

statement and, consequently, there is no need for me to

address the positions he has outlined.

Five years ago the talk was of a new international

order. The events that shook Eastern Europe at that time

led us to believe that the old bipolar world had expired and

that another order was bound to take its place. For some,

the reaction to the aggression against Kuwait marked the

beginning of this new phase. Reality did not live up to our

hopes. Today we have come to understand that the

equilibrium based on a bipolar world did not have a

"natural successor" and that it is up to us to build a new

one, little by little, through trial and error.

Of course, a new equilibrium is emerging in several

parts of the world.

First, there is the highly symbolic case of the Middle

East. Even if implementation of the Washington and Cairo

agreements is proving as arduous as was expected, every

new stage constitutes an important step towards lasting

peace. The historic rapprochement between Israel and

Jordan strengthens this prospect.

The new South Africa, too, is facing immense

challenges, but at the same time it has become a beacon of

hope for the entire African continent.

The strengthening of democracy and the progress

made in regional integration in Latin America seem to us

yet another meaningful evolution. A number of countries

in this region have now found the way towards sustainable

economic development.

The same holds true for Asia, where, moreover, a

readiness for dialogue now exists. The regional Forum

launched by the Association of South-East Asian Nations

(ASEAN), contacts on the Korean peninsula and, at another

level, the dialogue between the two sides of the Formosa

Strait all contribute towards a new climate of confidence.

While preparing to welcome four new members, the

European Union has signed cooperation agreements with

the majority of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe

that might ultimately lead to full membership.

Simultaneously, new geostrategic ties are being forged with

Russia.

The same will for dialogue is reflected in the

discussion of major issues that concern the future of our

Organization, such as reform of the Security Council.

Even if divergences of opinion remain on various points,

the sense of common interest prevails.

Belgium’s major concern remains the achievement

of a more representative Council without diminishing its

decision-making capacity. We prefer therefore to avoid

ambitious projects that would give privileged status to

several "regional Powers" according to imprecise criteria

but would not reinforce the Council’s ability to shoulder

its responsibilities.

Why not, as a first step, adapt the Council’s

membership on the basis of unanimously agreed criteria?

The international community could, as a measure with

immediate advantageous effect, grant an additional

non-permanent seat to the regions that consider

themselves to be underrepresented and confer permanent

member status on those two economic Powers whose

positive contribution to world affairs has long been

recognized.

These steps, however encouraging, do not by

themselves constitute a new international agreement.

Progress and the readiness for rapprochement are by no

means universal: Central Africa and Bosnia and

Herzegovina are cases in point.

The situation in Rwanda is uppermost in our minds.

The threat it represents of destabilization in Burundi and

the neighbouring countries has become a constant cause

for worry in recent months. However deep the hatred

born of the recent or the distant past, reconciliation is the

only alternative. We appeal to the leaders and prominent

citizens of these countries to unite their efforts to broaden

the base of political power and to stand firm against

extremists. Only when these conditions are met can

emergency aid make way for durable reconstruction.

Naturally, my country will contribute to each stage of this

renewal.

The civil war in the former Yugoslavia has cast first

Europe and then the entire world into profound disarray.

Yet for more than three years now, we have been

working relentlessly to put an end to this tragedy. The

United Nations Protection Force has become one of the

largest peace-keeping missions ever set up by our

Organization. The United Nations and the European

Union have worked together tirelessly to find a negotiated

solution. The main Powers have now added their weight

9

to these efforts. Let us hope that the latest attempt by the

European Union, the United States and the Russian

Federation will finally succeed in halting the bloodshed.

From this rostrum I call upon the parties to seize this

opportunity: put an end to madness and let peace return.

I have just touched upon two cases of civil war where

racial hatred has led to particularly inhumane behaviour.

More than ever, we must remain unyielding when human

rights are systematically violated. We must aim to banish

every regime that is based on practices of "ethnic

cleansing".

So that this lesson may never be forgotten, Belgium

favours the establishment of an international penal

jurisdiction and expresses the wish that the international

community do whatever is necessary to render it

operational as soon as possible. In the meantime, we

believe that the Tribunal created to judge the war crimes

perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia will stand as a

valuable precedent, which we would like to see extended to

the crimes committed in Rwanda as soon as possible.

Along the same lines, my Government welcomes the

appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The operational initiatives launched by Mr. Ayala Lasso -

sending human rights monitors to Rwanda, for instance -

have received early and concrete support from Belgium,

among others. I am convinced that Mr. Ayala Lasso’s

actions will strengthen the respect for human rights and

promote a successful dialogue among political leaders and

human rights activists in every part of the world. This

dialogue will take into account the differing approaches

inspired by various cultures and religions, but in my

opinion, it would lose its meaning if it were to compromise

on the one essential point: the respect owed to the physical

and moral integrity of every human being.

For Belgium, the crisis in Rwanda has marked the

international agenda. In the wake of the genocide, death

lashed out blindly at a population in exile, pushing back the

limits of horror already reached in Bosnia and Somalia.

My fellow citizens were deeply troubled by the ruin of so

many efforts of development, the failure of so many

attempts at reconciliation. The savage killing of 10 Belgian

"blue helmets", who were among the 100 United Nations

peace-keepers slain since the beginning of this year,

highlights the unmistakable fragility of peace-keeping

operations. I believe the best way to honour all those who

lost their lives is by reflecting in particular upon the limits

and possibilities of international action.

In this regard, the common experience in which

Belgium took part - in the former Yugoslavia, in Somalia

and in Rwanda - has enabled us, sometimes in tragic

circumstances, to make a number of observations for

future use. I intend to group them around four principles

that seem to me essential. First: peace-keeping

operations cannot be improvised. Second: once decided,

they should be given the means to achieve their aims.

Third: for these means to function fully, we should

ensure their operational and political coherence. And,

finally, as long as the security of the personnel involved

cannot be guaranteed, it will become increasingly difficult

to find troop contributors for peace-keeping missions,

which will thereby reduce them to a purely theoretical

instrument.

First, the principle of "non-improvisation" implies

two things.

The first is that the Organization must at all times be

able to mobilize the necessary means for a peace-keeping

operation and to this end rely on the solidarity of all its

members. This means that it is essential to reinforce the

military peace-keeping capacity of the Organization. In

the absence of a United Nations multilateral force that can

be deployed quickly, generalized offers of stand-by troops

and equipment and standardization of equipment and

procedures are objectives we must pursue diligently. To

this end I have sent the Secretary-General a list of

possible Belgian contributions which could be made

available for peace-keeping operations.

The second implication is that, even though

solidarity remains the basis for conceiving and

implementing peace-keeping, this solidarity cannot be

blind and automatic. Each specific operation must be the

result of careful consideration.

The launching of a new peace-keeping operation

should only be envisaged and seriously considered when

all other means of solving the crisis have been exhausted,

including at the regional level. Chapter VI, as well as

"An Agenda for Peace", offer a wide choice of

instruments for solving a crisis through negotiation,

arbitration, and so on. Those who forget that

peace-keeping operations are not a panacea do the

Organization a disservice and often unwittingly contribute

to making situations worse rather than solving them.

Once it has been decided by the Security Council, a

peace-keeping operation becomes everybody’s business.

All Member States must contribute according to their

10

possibilities and as circumstances dictate. Of course,

Member States must retain the sovereign right to decide

whether or not to participate in a given peace-keeping

operation, but in so doing, they should look beyond the

criterion of national interest.

All States should cooperate actively with a view to the

success of the operation by facilitating its movements,

supplies, reinforcements and the prepositioning of reserve

troops. All States should use their diplomatic influence to

help the Secretary-General achieve the political objectives

of an operation. And, finally, all States must adhere to

their financial obligations with respect to an operation.

Secondly, a peace-keeping operation must be based on

the consent of the parties, appropriate flexibility and

adequate information.

Every operation must be based on consensus among

the States legitimately involved. The conflicting parties

themselves must agree to the deployment and aims of the

operation, except in the case of an obvious humanitarian

catastrophe. In this all-too-frequent case, the Security

Council’s decision to act outside the framework of the

traditional mandate and disregard the three usual

conditions - in other words, agreement by the parties, the

political process and a cease-fire - must be taken with great

care. The Council must express this decision clearly in the

mandate and accept all its consequences.

An operation must at all times have the strength

necessary to execute its mission safely. This rule is of

utmost importance. It implies, to begin with, sufficient

manpower and flexible rules of engagement to respond to

the unexpected. It also implies adequate equipment to fulfil

the mandate and to react to emergencies. The deployment

of a military reserve in the vicinity has already proven its

usefulness, for example, in Somalia. It is a precautionary

measure we should envisage more often in the future. As

a rule, a force subject to local provocation must always

have the choice between evacuating or remaining in place,

between retreat or riposte.

But the use of force is not the first option to be

considered in order to discourage resistance to a

peace-keeping operation. Education and persuasion will do

miracles among populations that are often ill-informed or

even misguided about the objectives of a peace-keeping

operation. Experience has shown that it is absolutely

necessary to develop a coherent information strategy. Each

peace-keeping operation should be provided with an

information unit and a radio transmitter to broadcast its

message. Moreover, the ability to neutralize hostile

propaganda sources should be put to use each time this

propaganda threatens the safety of part of a population or

United Nations personnel.

The third consideration is that the cohesion of the

command and control structures and consultations on a

regular basis with troop-contributing countries are

conditions essential to the success of an operation.

The military and political control of an operation

must rest with the United Nations or with a duly

mandated body. This principle has two consequences.

Any attempt by the Commander of the Force or of

a small contingent to report directly only to national

authorities will reduce the cohesion of the multilateral

operation. The flexibility required by a commander in the

field to deal with the unexpected, however, is a different

matter.

When an action is undertaken by a regional or

multilateral force it must be authorized by the Security

Council. However, this authorization should not reduce

the operational autonomy of the commanders of such an

operation. Those who take the risk must be in control.

Moreover, for each operation a consultation

committee should be created in which troop contributors,

the members of the Security Council and the Secretariat

can meet at regular intervals. This committee will enable

the contributors better to assist the Secretariat in

managing the operation.

It will also generate a real dialogue between

contributors and the members of the Council, each time

the latter prepare to take a decision which modifies the

basic conditions of the operation. Contributors often have

a better knowledge of the situation in the field and are

best placed to judge whether a new task is feasible or

acceptable. Without troop contributors the resolutions of

the Council would remain ineffectual.

As a fourth and last consideration, the security of the

blue helmets is as much a concern of the contributing

countries as of the Secretariat. The prosecution of those

who attack the peace-keeping forces must be efficiently

organized.

The responsibility of a Government for its contingent

does not stop with its dispatch to the field of operations.

The contributing country has the right to watch over the

11

safety of its compatriots at all times. Ultimately, security

must be the decisive factor for a contributing country to

continue or suspend its participation in a peace-keeping

operation.

It seems normal, therefore, that a troop contributor

should be entitled to equip its contingent from the start with

sufficient defensive armament. Later, when unexpected

circumstances place the contingent in a situation of real

danger, the Security Council and the Secretary-General

must immediately adapt the mandate and, if necessary, the

rules of engagement to that situation.

It is a fundamental duty of the United Nations to

organize the international prosecution of those who attack

United Nations personnel. The impunity granted so far to

the perpetrators of such crimes gives rise to an uneasy

feeling and undermines the credibility of the United Nations

in the eyes of world opinion. The authority of our

Organization over those whom it is trying to reconcile is

negatively affected by this, and the Governments that

contribute troops are increasingly worried. In our opinion,

it is essential to speed up the adoption of a convention on

the security of United Nations personnel, as well as of the

investigations and the effective prosecution of those who

attack our personnel.

I hope that these thoughts that I have shared with the

Assembly will contribute to improving the procedures and

reinforcing the means put into effect by our Organization to

face up to the new situations that it needs to tackle. In

fact, these changes deserve to be formalized when any

revision of the Charter takes place. The functioning of the

peace-keeping operations would be greatly improved by

this.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

"Amongst the laws that govern human societies, there

is one that seems clearer and more precise than all

others. If men are to remain civilized, or become so,

the art of association must grow and improve at the

same rate as the equality of their conditions".

Though this "art of association" affects civil societies in the

first place, it is also, and more than ever, a concern of our

society of Governments. Launching peace-keeping

operations is without doubt a most generous expression of

this art of acting together.

In the meantime, the fact that we have been able to

multiply peace-keeping operations in difficult political,

financial and material circumstances is nothing short of

miraculous and prompts us to pay tribute to all the people

who have been working tirelessly within the Secretariat as

well as in the field.