United Kingdom, 1994

I should like first to

congratulate you most warmly, Sir, on your election as

President. The Assembly could not have made a wiser

choice. I wish you all good fortune and success in your

mission.

In a few months we shall commemorate the fiftieth

anniversary of the birth of the United Nations. The United

Nations is the fullest expression man has yet achieved of

the age-old desire to escape from war and establish an

enduring peace.

When the United Nations was founded in San

Francisco 50 years ago the threat of nuclear war between

the super-Powers had already begun to cast a shadow

across the world. That shadow has now lifted, and we all

live and sleep more safely as a result. Yet as we approach

the anniversary we are all more conscious of the suffering

and destruction that still disfigure parts of almost every

continent in the world. The threats to international peace

and security are more diffuse and perhaps less serious than

they were, but not less real and not less tragic for those

caught up in them.

To some extent, disappointment comes out of

exaggerated expectation. There is still a tendency to think

of the United Nations as if it were some great palace of

world order which descended splendidly from heaven 50

years ago. If that were our view, then every broken pane

of glass in that palace, every door, every pillar fouled or

damaged would be a disgrace and a scandal.

But, of course, in reality world order does not descend

from heaven at the moment when a Charter is signed. It is

not like that at all. World order is built painfully,

gradually, brick by brick. Sometimes the wind and the

weather destroy what has already been built. But the

builders cannot afford to be discouraged - and we are all

builders. They have to repair; they have to rebuild; they

have to hope that gradually in what they build the

advances will outnumber the retreats.

There have been recent advances that have been

dramatic - beyond expectation. No one who was present

at the Union Buildings in Pretoria this May could fail to

be moved at the birth of the new South Africa. The

goodwill and the cheerful determination of all South

Africans on that occasion were a marvelous refutation, it

seemed to me, of the cynicism that so often weakens our

work.

And we have seen the same as the peace process

gathers strength in the Middle East.

In part of my own country, we may - and I fervently

hope we shall - see killings cease, see fears slowly

dissolve, as a result of the process started by the British

and Irish Governments in the Downing Street Declaration

on Northern Ireland.

In Europe - in Cyprus, in the former Yugoslavia, in

Georgia -the United Nations has helped at least to contain

if not yet to resolve deep-rooted conflicts. The world’s

most intractable problems continue to be laid at your

door, Mr. Secretary-General, like infants laid at the door

of some medieval monastery. It is not surprising that, for

all the efforts of 77,000 men and women serving in

United Nations peace-keeping operations in the field, our

Organization has had failures as well as successes to its

name.

As is common in our society of mass media, the

headlines have been dominated by the reversals, and some

of them have indeed been tragic. In Rwanda the efforts

of the United Nations failed to avert genocide. In

Somalia it looks as if our efforts have been effectively

spurned by a people whose need for help seemed, and

seems, self-evident.

A word about Bosnia. There has in recent months,

mercifully, been more peace in Bosnia. It is a fragile,

uncertain, inconclusive, often interrupted peace, but it is

still better than what went before. We necessarily discuss

Bosnia all the time. The debate in particular in this

building about the United Nations arms embargo has at

times seemed to rage more fiercely than the fighting on

the ground. Certainly the diplomatic efforts have been

frustrating. And I can understand those who believe that

reverting to a fight, even a fight to the death, would be

5

preferable to the tangle of negotiations and compromise that

sometimes seems to stretch ahead for ever.

Nevertheless, I do not agree with that opinion. We

should value, we should build on, the advances that have

been made, we should value the lives that have been saved

by the reduction in fighting on the ground. We can now

see perhaps more clearly that the United Nations Protection

Force (UNPROFOR) has been essential in protecting

civilians and in preventing the Bosnian Serb army from

making further advances. Who here can believe that

Gorazde, or Srebrenica or Zepa would still be in the hands

of the Bosnian Government if it were not for the bravery

and commitment of UNPROFOR troops?

UNPROFOR can operate only if it is able to keep

lines open to all the parties to the fighting. It could not

continue if leading members of the United Nations were

rearming one side; UNPROFOR would then be identified

as a party to the war. It is not mandated or equipped for

that purpose. Our Secretary-General has endorsed that

view, and the Commander of United Nations forces in

Bosnia has rightly said "We have not come here to fight a

war from inside white painted vehicles".

So I welcome the decision of which we heard

yesterday from the Bosnian President, the decision to accept

that now is not the moment to lift the arms embargo. And

that Bosnian decision allows UNPROFOR to continue its

mission. We have said before that if the Bosnian Serbs do

not join the peace process and agree the map presented by

the Contact Group, then our present approach may become

exhausted. Lifting the arms embargo may become

unavoidable, as we said at Geneva in July, and in those

circumstances UNPROFOR would have to withdraw. But

it would not be a good policy. Indeed, it would be a policy

of despair, a policy that, as in Shakespeare’s King Lear,

"Bids the wind blow the earth into the sea,

"...

"That things might change or cease". (King Lear, Act

III, scene i, l. 5)

A real solution to the conflict, as always, lies with

those who are doing the fighting. We from outside must

continue to show all the parties that the way forward is

political agreement and not more military action. There is

a settlement plan, the settlement plan of the Contact Group,

on the table. Those who refuse it, those who continue the

warfare, must be isolated, must be put under sustained -

indeed, increased - pressure. Those who cooperate with the

international peace plan effectively, in deeds and not just

in words, should have that cooperation recognized.

I need to say a few words in response to the remarks

made yesterday by the distinguished President of

Argentina concerning the dispute over the Falkland

Islands. President Menem was right - and I am glad that

he mentioned it - when he referred to the increasing

cooperation between the United Kingdom and Argentina

in several areas. Indeed, this cooperation nowadays

characterizes our bilateral relationship. And we certainly

hope, sincerely hope, that the progress that we have

achieved together will not be reversed.

We are quite clear about British sovereignty over the

Falkland Islands and the other British dependencies in the

South Atlantic, so we were concerned at the recent

incorporation into the constitution of Argentina of the

new clause to which President Menem referred. It seems

to us that in these Falkland Islands, as in Northern

Ireland, we must heed the wishes of the people

concerned. Indeed, any other course for us or for the

United Nations would be inconceivable. This body has

heard those wishes of the Islanders expressed, most

recently by their elected representatives who visited the

United Nations for the debate in the Committee of 24 last

July.

So we have a difference. But despite this difference,

we have joined a dialogue with the Argentine

Government on fisheries and petroleum development. We

look forward to resuming discussions in the near future

with the Argentine authorities on a new agreement on

fishing and on the development of possible hydrocarbon

resources in the South Atlantic continental shelf. We are

also discussing the welcome Argentine offer to remove

mines from the Falklands. It seems to me that that is the

rational and logical path to the wider progress of which

the President of Argentina spoke.

I return to this Organization. It is often the target of

criticism because it cannot solve every problem laid at its

door. We all know that there is scope for improving the

performance of the United Nations here in New York

and, more critically, where the United Nations and its

agencies are in action on the ground. The steps taken so

far are a beginning, but only a beginning.

Machinery cannot run on thin air. The United

Nations can only run on the fuel that we, its Member

States, supply to it. So where it has failed, we must not

pretend that the failure lies with the system. It lies with

6

us. The failure of the United Nations is our failure, and so

it is for us to take action. For example, the sufferings of

the Rwandan refugees will not be helped by Member

States’ holding their heads in their hands. Their hands

should be ready to provide from their pockets what is

needed to remedy such suffering.

Preventive diplomacy is the ideal. But it often will

not be enough. We have to be prepared for the demand for

peace-keepers to continue. There are practical ways in

which we can respond better to that demand: first, by

ensuring that we learn the lessons from our experiences in

peace-keeping; secondly, by taking practical steps to

improve our capacity to keep the peace, especially in

Africa; and, thirdly, by reforming our financing system.

I should like to say a brief word about peace-keeping.

It is often impossible to predict at the outset of a mission

what demands or dangers United Nations troops will

encounter. Within limits, they must be ready to improvise.

But allowing their role to drift from peace-keeping to taking

sides in a war carries high risks to the troops themselves,

to the political process they support, and to the ability of

the United Nations to put in peace-keepers elsewhere. It

undermines the willingness of Member States to contribute

troops. So in making their decision to contribute to a

United Nations operation countries need to be confident that

their troops will be supporting peace and not becoming a

party to war.

Rwanda put this to the test, and we were found

wanting for a response for the time being. The issue was

not really whether the United Nations should have sent an

intervention force to stop the fighting - which it clearly

could not - but whether it could find the means, the men

and the equipment, for a force to protect the civilian

population. That, tragically, took far too long.

That is the latest lesson we need to learn from. It is

not now, it seems to me, a question of will, because there

is a far greater readiness than there used to be to

contemplate intervention on the ground to mitigate or

prevent humanitarian disaster. It is not so much the will,

the intellectual willingness; it is the resources, the know-

how, the ability to respond swiftly, which are still not

enough.

You, Mr. Secretary-General, have pointed this out over

and over again, and I should like to pay tribute to the

patience and persistence with which you have rammed

home this lesson and sought not merely to tell us the truths

about it but to persuade us into practical action and remedy.

I agree with what you have said on many occasions. We

need to work hard and fast to overcome obstacles which

are essentially practical.

We British will continue to contribute practically.

We have 4,000 British men and women in blue berets,

from Georgia to Rwanda, something which would have

been thought inconceivable even 10 years ago. We have

the seconded British experts at United Nations

Headquarters. The speed with which the Department of

Peace-keeping Operations has adapted to cope with ever-

increasing demand has been impressive. The

development of the professional military staff at United

Nations Headquarters has been particularly welcome. So

has the trend to bring more seconded staff in alongside

United Nations personnel. But it will be vital also to help

to strengthen our ability to respond quickly in areas where

it remains weak. Africa, in the light of experience,

should be a priority.

Africa’s need for peace-keepers is plain to see:

nearly 40 per cent of all United Nations peace-keepers are

deployed in Africa. Africa needs peace. There can be no

doubt of that, because it is only in peace that Africans

will succeed in finding their own solutions to their

problems. The remarkable events in South Africa earlier

this year showed that.

The efforts of the Organization of African Unity

(OAU) to develop a coherent approach to the prevention

of conflict are welcome. They deserve our full support.

But the OAU has warned that its resources are not

enough. I believe that the United Nations must respond.

By setting up a coherent structure of support systems,

running from early warning and preventive diplomacy

right through to humanitarian and peace-keeping

deployment on the ground, we can make sure that the

skills and resources can be put into action as soon as the

need arises, and not months later.

What does that mean? It means, first, an early

warning system. Not all conflicts can be foreseen. Some

are triggered by assassination or a coup d’état or other

sudden events. More often, surely, we can see trouble

brewing: competition for land and resources, ethnic or

religious rivalry, the gradual breakdown of law and order,

ill-judged responses by central governments. We need a

mechanism to pull together information and analysis of

events like these, to take a regular forward look at

potential troublespots and decide whether preventive

diplomacy needs to be triggered.

7

Then, secondly, it means a capacity to react, that is to

say, to intervene diplomatically before warfare breaks out.

We do not have that capacity now. Britain and France - we

announced this last year - have offered help, making

available experienced diplomats and offering equipment and

support. There needs to be an institutional framework. In

Europe we have the Conference on Security and

Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which operates to agreed

principles and has intervened, for example, in Ukraine,

Moldova and the Baltic States to try to help parties to

resolve disputes before there is recourse to fighting. The

OAU has its own experience of pre-emptive action, and it

would clearly need to be the focal point of an enhanced

effort in Africa. I am proposing that the United Nations

should help the OAU and African countries to share this

expertise and establish agreed mechanisms for preventive

diplomacy in Africa.

But, thirdly, that will not always be enough. Peace-

keeping skills will continue to be in demand. We must

build up the necessary capabilities in Africa. Many African

countries already make a major contribution to peace-

keeping - Ghana, Egypt, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia,

to mention just some. But we all know the United Nations

has not been able to deploy in Africa with the necessary

speed and effectiveness.

I therefore propose that, under the auspices of the

United Nations, a number of military staff colleges existing

in Africa should become peace-keeping skills centres; that

is to say, they should give training in doctrines and

disciplines of peace-keeping, and in mediation and conflict

resolution.

The physical capacity also needs to be strengthened if

intervention is to be rapid when it is needed. That requires

United Nations logistics basing centres, like those already

existing in Europe, to store equipment and ensure that it is

quickly available, with rapid mobile logistics teams,

earmarked by Member States, to help to maintain that

equipment in good running order and to give training and

on-the-spot maintenance support. Again, the lesson of

Rwanda is clear. These centres will also need headquarters

staff to identify and remedy logistic weaknesses, give

advice on maps or communications and advise existing and

potential troop contributors.

These are not proposals for enormous new machinery.

We need a framework within which existing resources,

capability and know-how can be mobilized. We will

strongly support such an effort. It needs further

discussion - above all, among and with African countries.

We would welcome such discussion soon, here in New

York, to develop these ideas, other people’s ideas and

take some practical decisions quickly.

Finally, money. As you, Mr. Secretary-General,

remind us, as you are bound to remind us, the United

Nations at the moment works miracles with what we do

not pay it. It simply cannot keep running on exhausted

credit. It must be able to pay its peace-keepers, for

example. We will not be able to build up the operations

of the United Nations unless we act now to put the

finances of the United Nations on a sound and sustainable

footing for the long term.

No radical change in principles is needed, but we do

need a sensible updating of the way in which assessments

are calculated. The existing system was adopted in 1973.

Much has changed. No one now would propose that

States with above average per capita incomes should

enjoy an 80 per cent discount on their peace-keeping

contributions. No one now would suggest that discounts

for all the newly independent Member States should be

absorbed by five countries in an open-ended arrangement.

But that is the system. It means that some countries are

paying too much and others too little. It means that we

now need to put these anomalies right. Moving to a

system based on relative capacity to pay, with automatic

adjustment for changing circumstances, would not mean

very much change for most countries, but it would mean

a fair, equitable basis on which the long-term viability

and therefore vitality of the United Nations could be

assured.

A word about the Security Council. Reform is on

the agenda - that is quite right - and I believe it is in the

interests of the United Nations to sort out the question of

enlargement in good time. We would like the momentum

of discussion to be maintained.

Next year’s fiftieth anniversary is a good milestone

for the debate. We will work hard for a good outcome,

both on enlargement and on transparency, where recent

informal arrangements to improve consultation on peace-

keeping between the Secretariat, the Security Council and

troop contributors should be further developed.

We should ensure that the Council is representative,

while avoiding an enlargement so great that it puts at risk

the effectiveness of the Council. If consensus can be

reached, then clearly there are countries that, by virtue of

their global interests and their contribution to international

8

security and United Nations operations, should be invited to

accept the responsibilities of permanent membership.

I have concentrated today on how we deal with crises

and defuse tensions. But, of course, those are only some of

the challenges that our Organization faces. Drug trafficking

and associated international crime are other threats to our

security and well-being. We need to give new energy and

encouragement to all those who are involved in developing

cooperation against those threats. I mention this because I

feel that we must give particular support to the United

Nations International Drug Control Programme. This is the

programme that has the responsibility for leading all the

world’s efforts in this field. Once again, the United

Nations is the best resource we have for tackling a menace

that threatens the whole world.

In conclusion, we can say confidently that the United

Nations is indispensable. It is not a perfect glass palace,

but it is the best building we have, even though the winds

still blow cruelly through its gaps and its defects. We all,

therefore, have a duty to repair, make good, build afresh.

Next year we will look back rightly on the

achievements, and the list of achievements is long. But it

will remind us, and we will remind ourselves, of what has

not yet been achieved. And I hope that will stir us to show

the same vision, the same strength of purpose as the

founders of the United Nations, with, I hope, results of

equal value for the next 50 years.