Belgium, 1998

I would first like to congratulate our colleague,

the Uruguayan Minister Didier Opertti, on his election to

the presidency of our General Assembly.

I would also like to associate myself with the

statement made by our colleague, Mr. Wolfgang Schüssel,

who spoke on behalf of the European Union. My country

shares and supports entirely the concerns and objectives

he outlined.

Unprecedented crises over the last few months have

shaken our economies and the economies of the entire

region. To varying degrees, the economies of the world

have all sustained the social and political consequences of

interdependence and the information systems that link

them. It therefore seems to me that the time has come to

rethink seriously the way in which international

institutions and national Governments deal with the

tensions and constraints which result from globalization.

This means specifically that we must reflect upon

the quality of life humankind will have in the next

century. Despite worrisome forecasts, we seem unable to

come up with a list of priorities which reflects the global

public interest. We must establish a common frame of

reference that ensures the peaceful coexistence of States

and their citizens while at the same time respecting their

diversity. This task is the indispensable corollary of

globalization, which has numerous ramifications for

current problems. The international communityâs

responses have therefore been flawed and partial and

subject to corporate logic and a narrow view of the

issues.

The limitations of these responses are well known to

us. Countless children died last year from diseases which

could have been eradicated. Tropical forests covering an

area equivalent to three times the size of Belgium

21

disappeared. The developing worldâs debt remains

untenably large, while expenditures for weapons continues

to grow. Incalculable numbers of people have been

detained, tortured, killed or forced to flee their countries.

Hundreds of innocent victims have lost their lives in

terrorist attacks.

Global information networks and new technologies

reduce distances. Thanks to television, more than one

billion people can today discover both manâs incredible

inventions and the worst abuses he is capable of. This is a

scenario which touches our conscience.

Todayâs crises affect the entire global system and call

for solutions on the same level. The only way to respond

effectively is to give a greater role to international solidarity

and social justice. Those are the two pillars of the new

international ethic that I would like to call for today. This

is not a simple task. No Government likes to limit its room

to manoeuvre, even for just causes, if it is the only one

paying the price for its commitments.

I am nevertheless convinced that the United Nations

is the best forum to have a debate on this matter of

international public interest. It is here, and nowhere else,

that we can draw up universally accepted norms that have

the approval of the largest possible number of States. The

Organization can help us strengthen international consensus

and the acceptance of codes of conduct designed to set the

boundaries of human dignity and peaceful coexistence.

Economic and financial power dominates the world,

but the last few months have shown that it is not capable of

running it. The globalization of political life and civil

society leads us to attempt to reach beyond national

limitations to confront our problems. Liberalization has

generated significant growth in trade and investments. It has

also led to increased transparency between our different

social systems. This transparency obliges us more than in

the past to reflect upon our concepts of the rights of the

individual and the need to defend them.

However, access to the global economic village has

not led to a concomitant strengthening of solidarity. The

capacity of men and women to adapt has been severely put

to the test. The grip of the logic of the marketplace on the

individual seems to relegate him to a secondary role in the

international system. Our societies should henceforth

reconcile the often very divergent effects that globalization

has on the individual and on the State — namely,

unemployment, competition and financial speculation. The

balance between the freedom of some and the rights of

others is all too often disturbed. Marginalization and

abject poverty are reappearing, thereby threatening the

exercise of the most fundamental of rights. After the

1980s — a lost decade, from the point of view of

development — the decade of structural adjustments has

been unable to put economies back on the road to

sustainable development. Differences in income, both at

the level of society and at the global level, have been

accentuated. What can we do? What must we do?

The Internet and the financial markets by themselves

cannot hold the international community together. We

know that Governments alone are incapable of dealing

with the problems with which they are confronted. This

is why new forms of solidarity and new ways of dealing

with these issues are indispensable. Only a strong political

international organization can counterbalance the forces of

the financial markets. The loss of power of nation-States

over financial and economic decisions is glaring; the

social consequences are even more so. This does not call

into question the existing consensus on the validity of

controlled liberalization of trade, but it does put all

Governments up against the wall. Has the time not come

for some sort of regulation that benefits everyone?

Indeed, liberalization cannot be an end in itself. It

has no purpose if it does not contribute to social progress

for the largest possible number of people. We should

therefore strive together to find concerted responses to the

uncontrolled and painful effects of this evolution by

strengthening public control throughout the world. In this

regard some have proposed an economic security council.

This is obviously an ambitious idea, but it does serve to

show how serious the threat of financial instability and

economic uncertainty is to our societies. In any case, an

intensified dialogue between the United Nations and the

Bretton Woods institutions must be instituted as a first

step.

Of course, regional strategies have been developed

to strengthen economic convergence in certain regions

and to integrate them into zones. Nevertheless, these

regional strategies should respect the rules of

multilateralism. Efficient partnerships based on mutual

trade have to be developed with other regions without

marginalizing third States. Developing countries must be

integrated in commerce and enjoy the fruits of market

liberalization. In this respect, my country supports the

efforts placed on record by the European Union in the

spirit referred to as “fair trade”.

22

I would now like to say a few words about the United

Nations, which is at the centre of all these interactions. I

say to you, the representatives of the 185 nations committed

to the pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations, that

we have all too often forgotten our obligations under the

Charter. Now that we are free of the shackles of the cold

war and its ideological deadlocks, the obligation to

strengthen cohesion between States and to promote social

justice is more than ever the real order of business.

In this respect, I support the proposal to devote the

Millennium Assembly to the issue of the fight against

poverty. The gaze of much of the world will be turned

towards the United Nations at that time. It would be a

terrible failure if on that occasion we were only able to

refer poverty to various committees, soothing our

conscience with meetings of fleeting significance. As the

Secretary-General stresses in his report, the fight against

poverty starts with good governance. Political

democratization and mechanisms for revenue sharing are

indispensable elements.

The question of Central Africa is currently of

particular importance for Africa. After hopes were raised

for what some wanted to call an African renaissance, the

continent has again become prey to violence that is

becoming dangerously ethnic in character. Once again, the

principal victims are among the most vulnerable people in

the world.

The crisis in the Great Lakes region is a moral

challenge for the United Nations. It imposes on us the duty

of solidarity. We must help Africa to find solutions and to

implement them without interfering or trying to impose

solutions. The United Nations, together with the relevant

regional and subregional organizations, should involve itself

in an initiative to restore dialogue to the region and to put

confidence-building measures in place. I believe that a

conference on regional security and cooperation in the

Great Lakes region — if it is viewed as a process rather

than as a single event — could serve as the vehicle for

stabilizing the region. My country is willing to support such

an initiative.

Political instability, uninterrupted violence and

challenges to the nation State have led to large-scale

population movements. In Central Africa, Kosovo and

elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of families have been

forced to flee their homes and their land. It is our shared

duty to continue to assist humanitarian organizations in

their efforts to come to the aid of these refugees and to

enable them to return home. However, sometimes, when the

roads or the family land are littered with landmines and

children cannot go to school without being exposed to

physical danger, returning can be a problem. We must rid

ourselves of these landmines; their production must stop.

These devices of death must be for ever banished from

the Earth.

I welcome the entry into force of the Convention on

the total prohibition of anti-personnel landmines and

appeal to donor and victim countries to support the

integrated activities undertaken by the United Nations in

this field, including through voluntary financial

contributions.

But that is not enough. Conflict prevention should be

a priority, and within our Organization we must also pay

attention to the less spectacular aspects of conflict

prevention, such as early warning and the establishment

of an appropriate United Nations presence on the ground.

Conflict prevention will make no sense if we do not

at the same time put an end to the acquisition of arms by

those who attempt to resolve their problems through

violence. Belgium has responded positively to the

European Union initiative to formulate a code of conduct

for arms transactions. My country is also a strong

advocate of giving the United Nations Register of

Conventional Arms effective universal application. It is

also behind several initiatives designed to block the illegal

transfer of small arms. The Brussels conference, which

will take place in October, and our participation on the

Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, provide

further examples of our commitment, which extends to all

sectors of disarmament. How could it be otherwise, when

some countries consider it useful to put on an alarming

show of their nuclear expertise?

A significant contribution to ethical renewal in

international relations was the adoption, after much work,

of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is

indeed shocking that those responsible for the most

reprehensible crimes, in particular genocide, can go

unpunished. Belgium has recently signed the Statute of

the International Criminal Court and intends to work for

its effective establishment. My country will also continue

to support the two existing United Nations ad hoc

criminal tribunals. Some countries still harbour doubts

about that important undertaking. However, a balance has

been found between international security and justice. The

only remaining question is whether we, so-called civilized

nations, are prepared to adopt binding rules so as to

ensure respect for the most elementary and universally

23

accepted principles of respect for the human being and

international coexistence. Adopting voluntary restrictions to

strengthen an international ethical code can only benefit

States and their citizens. That is truly the role of the State:

to ensure that its citizens are protected — if necessary,

through international law.

I do not consider it realistic to develop a global ethical

code without working for the protection and education of

our children. Working together with other countries, the

United Nations Childrenâs Fund (UNICEF) and other

United Nations organizations, Belgium has played an

important role in a number of initiatives. I propose that the

General Assembly at its fifty-third session build upon its

achievements with respect to the definition of standards for

the protection of children. Child labour is a waste of human

beings — for the girls and boys who are subjected to it and

for future generations. Market forces must yield in this

area. Like the enlistment of child soldiers, child labour is a

moral scandal that must be remedied through the

development of alternatives adapted to the sociocultural

context at the local level.

One of my Governmentâs priorities is the fight against

the most repugnant forms of exploitation. We are alarmed

by the use of the Internet by those who traffic in children

and by networks of prostitutes and all the new forms of

crime that make a mockery of traditional methods of

defending the rule of law. Here, too, international

cooperation is the only solution.

I am also ready to take the initiative, on the occasion

of the tenth anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of

the Child in 1999, to organize, together with UNICEF and

all interested countries, a meeting in Belgium at which we

can all share our experiences with regard to our respective

legislation.

The ideas that I have outlined will be not bear fruit if

Member States do not cooperate fully with the

Organization. Denying the Secretary-General the resources

needed to turn the United Nations into an efficient

instrument will only make matters worse. The Secretary-

General deserves our full support in his reform efforts.

The Security Council is crucial for the maintenance of

international peace and security. Its reform is of concern to

us all. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, a balanced

enlargement of the Council can be agreed upon. The work

undertaken during the past year has sometimes been

disappointing because of the stubborn resistance of several

countries. Belgium belongs to the majority of Member

States arguing for a strengthening of the authority of the

Council. My country clearly laid out its position: we

would like an equal increase in the number of permanent

and non-permanent members, better representation of the

various regions and self-imposed limits on the use of the

right of veto under certain conditions provided for in

advance. The privilege of veto is excessive when it is

used to the detriment of the interests of the international

community as whole.

The consensus proposal put forward by the group of

10 has numerous advantages and offers material for

further reflection. It is quite disturbing to see that a

minority of Member States are ignoring the evolution of

international relations over the last 50 years while at the

same time claiming for themselves a preponderant role in

the maintenance of international peace and security.

Postponing reform of the Security Council is tantamount

to an assault on its credibility.

The financial health of the Organization has not

improved much over the course of the last year. Belgium

believes that countries that accumulate arrears harm the

entire international community. The damage goes beyond

the resulting debt, because the Organization is denied the

means fully to discharge its mandate. Furthermore, the

reform process is jeopardized. Nothing can make up for

the damage this does to international cooperation and

social progress. The political and moral responsibility of

those Governments is at stake. None who speak from this

rostrum can claim their attachment to United Nations

ideals without accepting the financial obligations involved

in being a Member, that is, payment in full, on time and

without conditions of their financial contributions.

In face of the excesses of the international system,

the international community must be on guard. Here as

well our Organization can be the worldâs conscience. Its

weighty role is to help Member States formulate adequate

responses to the globalization with which we are

confronted. It is therefore in a serious yet hopeful frame

of mind that I look at the agenda of this session of the

General Assembly and pledge my countryâs full support

for the work ahead of us.