Liechtenstein, 2005

One week

ago, the world summit sent a message of hope for

peace, development and human rights for all, and took

a number of steps towards institutional reform at the

United Nations. The summit meeting has achieved

much. It has also left a lot undone and has not met our

expectations in several areas. We agree with the

General Assembly President’s assessment that only the

work we do over the next few months will allow us a

final assessment of the value of the outcome document.

The summit certainly did not achieve the

comprehensive breakthrough we had hoped for. We

therefore look forward to working under the

President’s guidance on the follow-up and

implementation and welcome the fact that he has

started this process immediately. Institutional change

must be the focus of our attention over the next few

months, both through the creation of new bodies and

the adaptation of existing ones. We will give particular

attention to the Human Rights Council, the Security

Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat.

We shared the general relief at the last-minute

agreement on the outcome document, since a lack of

such agreement would have been disastrous. We had

created expectations that were much higher than what

we could have possibly achieved, at a time when the

United Nations seemed more in need of reform than

ever before. The reputation and the worldwide image

of the United Nations is clearly not what it used to

be — the oil-for-food scandal, cases of sexual

exploitation by United Nations peacekeepers, inaction

in the face of mass crimes and humanitarian crises

have overshadowed the many success stories that this

Organization has to tell.

15

It is important to move on from the oil-for-food

scandal. Moving on, however, must not mean that we

ignore, yet again, the fact that the massive abuse and

mismanagement revealed in the Volcker reports are but

one expression of what is a systemic problem. Too

much went wrong in the oil-for-food programme, and

everybody involved failed in their responsibilities in

one way or another, including the Security Council. No

bureaucracy can be changed overnight, as we all know

from our national experience; but it is clear that only a

more accountable Secretariat, one that works without

undue pressure from us, the Member States, can restore

the confidence of the peoples it is meant to serve.

Accountability must also be a key principle for

the intergovernmental bodies and thus guide us in our

work on the relevant reforms. We are concerned at the

increasingly skewed institutional balance within the

Organization. The Security Council has clearly taken

on a role that goes far beyond the central place it was

given under the Charter. Indeed, its activities are

increasingly venturing into the domains reserved for

the General Assembly, in particular.

This entails a twofold risk. On the one hand,

many countries increasingly feel a lack of ownership of

the Organization, although collective ownership based

on the principle of sovereign equality is one of the

cornerstones of the Organization. On the other hand,

the Security Council is at risk of being paralysed by the

sheer amount of issues on its agenda. The answer to

this challenge is clear: we need a stronger General

Assembly that asserts its central role and carries out its

functions effectively. In parallel, the Security Council

must become more transparent and accountable in

order to truly carry out its functions on behalf of the

entire membership.

The lack of a solution to the complex issue of

Security Council reform is a disappointment to many.

Enlargement and a more representative Council are

clear necessities, and we will do our part to achieve an

early solution, with the strongest possible political

support. In addition, and not less importantly, we must

also improve the working methods of the Security

Council, as stated in the World Summit Outcome

(resolution 60/1). Transparency, accountability and

stronger involvement of States that are not members of

the Council are of decisive importance to enable it to

truly act on behalf of the membership, as mandated by

the Charter. We will work hard for early and concrete

results, since effective changes in the daily workings of

the Council would benefit the entire membership.

We routinely repeat our annual call for a stronger

General Assembly. Small steps are taken every year,

and all of them are important. It appears to us,

however, that the most essential efforts to revitalize the

General Assembly do not come from measures

contained in General Assembly resolutions. Rather,

Member States must ensure that the Assembly is seized

with truly relevant topics that are treated efficiently

and effectively. We may deplore the migration of topics

to the Security Council that we think should be dealt

with instead by the General Assembly. This trend,

however, will continue unabated unless the Assembly

proves to be a central decision-making body that takes

its responsibilities seriously. The Assembly is what we,

as Member States, want it to be. A genuine and

sustained effort is, therefore, required from all of us.

We continue to fully support the early

establishment of a Human Rights Council to replace

the Commission on Human Rights. Like others, we

were disappointed at the meagre substance on this

topic that found its way into the outcome document.

The Organization needs a standing body that

effectively promotes human rights worldwide, swiftly

responds to gross and systematic violations of human

rights and reflects the importance of human rights for

this Organization. Close cooperation with a

strengthened Office of the High Commissioner for

Human Rights will be essential. The Council must not

duplicate the work carried out by other bodies, in

particular the General Assembly. It must, therefore, not

be a remake of the Commission on Human Rights with

a new label. We look forward to working with the

presidency towards an early solution that would add

concrete value for the protection and promotion of

human rights.

Mr. Loizaga (Paraguay), Vice-President, took the

Chair.

We consider the recognition of the “responsibility

to protect” as one of the most positive elements in the

outcome document. The main obligation for its

implementation naturally falls to the Security Council.

The Council has to ensure that disgraceful inaction,

such as in the case of the genocide in Rwanda, cannot

ever occur again. When the lives of innocent civilians

are at stake, such a responsibility must not be

compromised by political considerations. Collective

16

action to prevent and respond to genocide, crimes

against humanity and war crimes must, therefore, not

be made impossible by a veto or threat of veto by one

of the permanent members of the Council. We hope

that the Council will stand up to the challenge raised

by the summit. The membership as a whole clearly has

a shared obligation in this respect.

Our achievement in the Summit Outcome on the

“responsibility to protect” stands in stark contrast to

our silence on the importance of fighting impunity for

the worst crimes of international concern. More

progress has been made in this area in the past few

years than in almost any other area of international

relations. Transitional justice is now an inevitable

element of any serious effort to help societies in post-

conflict situations. There is now a close and well-

established relationship between the International

Criminal Court and the United Nations, in particular

after the Security Council decision to mandate the

Court to investigate the crimes in Darfur. We trust that

efforts to fight impunity will remain a high priority for

the Organization, recognizing the central role of the

International Criminal Court in that respect.

While it may be premature to pronounce a final

judgement on the value of the outcome document, one

thing can be said with certainty: that document is a

reflection of what is agreeable five years after the

Millennium Summit. It is remarkable how uneven

progress has been in several areas. Major advances,

such as the decision to fill an institutional void by

creating a Peacebuilding Commission, are

accompanied by major failures, such as the absence of

any agreement in the area of disarmament and non-

proliferation. We have no choice but to build on the

positive elements of the Summit Outcome and to find

early solutions to institutional questions, in particular.

Progress in those areas should help us to intensify our

work and eventually to find agreement on unresolved

questions in vital areas such as disarmament and non-

proliferation. In this way, we can make the summit a

turning point in the history of the United Nations.

Two years ago, the Secretary-General said that

we had reached a fork in the road; that observation was

repeated many times during the process leading up to

the summit. So where are we today? Looking back at

what we have achieved, it seems that we have taken the

advice of Yogi Berra, one of the great legends of the

City of New York, who said: “When you come to a

fork in the road, take it!”