Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1992

It is a great pleasure to see you,

Sir, a youthful symbol of a profoundly changed Bulgaria, in the Chair. I know

and trust that you will steer us skilfully through this session of the General

Assembly.

The cold war is over. The world has heaved a sigh of relief. The United

Nations now has an unprecedented opportunity to carry out the mandate

contained in the Charter, even though politically the world has grown much

more complex and complicated.

Of course, no change has occurred in the underlying problems of a

long-term nature. The threat to the very survival of the human race posed by

the deterioration of the environment, overpopulation and poverty was there

already, even though awareness of the threat has increased quite dramatically

in recent years. It is a threat that will be with us for years to come, and

it will grow more and more acute if there is a lack of appropriate action.

One course of action is for the United Nations to put its house in order in

these areas through a restructuring of its economic and social sectors and

through a meaningful follow-up to the Rio Summit. The United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development has put sustainable development high

on our agenda, and there it should remain. The establishment of solid

machinery, including a high-level commission on sustainable development, will,

we hope, be one of the major achievements of this session of the General

Assembly.

But in the political field, on which I will concentrate today, there has

been a qualitative change. We are still thankful for the end of the cold war,

with its menace of massive nuclear destruction, but in its stead a plethora of

conflicts and potential conflicts has sprung up with a vehemence which nobody

had foreseen. Each of these conflicts has its own characteristics, and each

has to be dealt with in a particular fashion. The United Nations is, on the

whole, the right organization to deal with these emergencies, whether directly

or indirectly. In order to carry out that task it will need to possess all

the means necessary for what I would call a flexible response, ranging from

preventive diplomacy to repressive action. A number of these requirements

have been set out by the Secretary-General in his impressive report "An Agenda

for Peace" (A/47/277). This Agenda will form the basis for our discussions on

the subject.

Where and when should the United Nations intervene? Clearly, it cannot

be everything to everyone. In order not to overstretch, it inevitably has to

apply a certain degree of self-restraint. Moreover, the membership of our

Organization consists of sovereign States, and respect for their sovereignty

is one of its principles. Nevertheless, it would be too easy to make

non-intervention and deference to domestic jurisdiction the leading

guideline. Moreover, it would not work. Frontiers have become porous and

information world-wide. Atrocities and aggression committed within a country

cannot pass unnoticed, and once noticed will not be tolerated by world

opinion. For the United Nations to stand idly by would be detrimental to its

new-found status, which we all have an interest in protecting.

With the end of the cold war, regional conflicts have proliferated, but

at the same time the possibility of doing something about them has increased.

This is both because the Security Council is not paralyzed by vetoes any more

and because the risk of a conflict's degenerating into global war has

subsided. This makes it possible to contemplate international action where it

would have been impossible or unfeasible before. With the possibility of

action comes the notion that lack of action is a form of action as well,

requiring a decision, just as a decision is necessary to act. A decision not

to act in the case of flagrant violations of human rights or the rights of

minorities, or in the case of large-scale human suffering, will now set a

precedent, just as planned intervention does. It is no longer possible just

to look the other way.

Perhaps somewhat belatedly, this has been recognized in the case of

Somalia. The international community could not afford to condone the

intolerable situation in that country any longer. The short-term task

consists of assuring the survival of the people. In the somewhat longer term,

the whole country will have to be reconstructed. The United Nations has a

major role to play on both counts.

The United Nations has also become involved in former Yugoslavia. Here

we see massive aggression, destruction, impending starvation and even the

establishment of concentration camps, all with a view to making large areas

"ethnically clean", as the ugly saying goes. Nationalism and irredentism have

run wild and are threatening neighbouring States as well. Everyone knows who

is mainly responsible.

Concerted action can and should be taken. Effective delegation and

cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations is crucial.

Joint United Nations-European Community efforts to help solve the Yugoslav

crisis are a clear example. Interaction between the United Nations and the

European Community, in their co-chairmanship of the London Conference, has

underlined the potential for coordination between the United Nations and

regional organizations in the field of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and

peacemaking. It is not only Chapter VIII that is being put into practice

here. Even more important is the linkage between the quest for a diplomatic

solution on the one hand and the possibility of enforcement action by the

United Nations on the other hand, in the event of non-compliance by the

parties concerned. The recognition of territorial and ethnical faits

accomplis would be an insult to the Charter. To my mind, the Yugoslav crisis

is a compelling case for action. More could be done, and I hope that more

will be done soon.

The Netherlands fully supports the Secretary-General's view that:

"regional arrangements or agencies in many cases possess a potential that

should be utilized in serving... preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping,

peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building". (A/47/277, para. 64)

Indeed, I am convinced that regional organizations increasingly have to take

up responsibilities with regard to regional peace and security. The role of

the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in the Yugoslav

crisis is a clear example of this trend. So are others, such as the

Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity.

The process of delegation and cooperation between the United Nations and

the various regional organizations does not have to stop at this level.

Organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western

European Union have specific operational contributions to make as well. Both

organizations recently announced at the CSCE Summit in Helsinki their decision

to make resources available to support the CSCE or the United Nations in

carrying out peace-keeping activities. The CSCE can also call on others, such

as the Commonwealth of Independent States, to contribute to peace-keeping

activities. This development is a concrete example of an evolving network of

organizations which we refer to as 'interlocking institutions'.

The Security Council is rightly the focus of world attention nowadays.

This new interest has provided the discussion on the Council's membership with

a fresh impetus. In the last chapter of "An Agenda for Peace", the

Secretary-General observes that agreement among the permanent members of the

Security Council must have the deeper support of the other members of the

Council. It should also have the wider support of the membership of the

Assembly if the Council's decisions are to be effective and are to endure.

This raises the question of the relationship between members and non-members

of the Council and of the Council's composition.

The achievements of the Council in terms of effective leadership and

decision-making, particularly during the last two years, need not be

elaborated upon. Supporters of the maintenance of its current composition can

hence, with some justification, argue that there is no need to change a

winning team, or, to use a colloquial expression of our host country, "If it

ain't broke, don't fix it." The critics of the status quo argue that the

Council's present composition is a reflection of the balance of power of days

gone by. This leaves us with a dilemma because both sides have a point.

Important changes have taken place in international relations. The

number of Member States has increased enormously since the enlargement of the

Council in 1963. The Charter specifies in Article 24 that the Council acts on

behalf of all Members. This implies that the Council should be, to a certain

degree, representative of the international community. Were the Council to

become an exclusive club disconnected from the United Nations membership as a

whole, this might tend to undermine its authority and diminish its

effectiveness. So what are we to do when faced with the question of the

Council's effectiveness on the one hand and its representativeness on the

other?

A possible solution to this question might be found in severing the

automatic link between permanent membership of the Council and the right of

veto. A number of concrete options can be considered in this respect. One

would be to consider the adoption of a double veto: two negative votes by

permanent members being required to hold up a decision instead of one.

Another suggestion put forward is the creation of semi-permanent membership of

the Security Council. This membership would apply to a certain category of

important States for a period of, say, five to seven years, possibly without

the right of veto.

To determine which countries would be eligible for this type of

membership, it seems that two criteria are relevant: both the political

weight of the country concerned and the degree to which its membership would

contribute to a more equitable geographical distribution of the Council's

composition. In view of the Council's responsibility for the maintenance of

international peace and security, it would appear to me that those two

elements should be carefully balanced against each other.

Clearly, the creation of semi-permanent membership is only one of a

number of options that can be considered. A broad international discussion on

this issue has already begun. The basis of this discussion should be in the

agreement that any change envisaged should first and foremost seek to ensure

the continued effectiveness of the Council for the United Nations as a whole.

In recent years we have seen some very encouraging developments all over

the world in the field of human rights. Many nations have taken the difficult

but promising road to democracy. Their success will undoubtedly contribute to

a further spread of respect for fundamental human rights. It was our hope

that the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, to be held next year

in Vienna, would contribute to this positive trend. The Netherlands welcomed

the process from the start. We are, for instance, a major donor to the fund

that allows delegations from the least privileged countries to participate.

However, the preparatory process has thus far failed to produce an agenda

for the Conference. The Chairperson of the preparatory process rightly

concluded that most States will be disappointed at the lack of results. The

Netherlands shares this feeling of disappointment. Curiously enough, the

results thus far have lagged behind the constructive and relatively harmonious

results achieved in other United Nations forums such as the United Nations

Commission on Human Rights. The perfect example of this was the recent

unanimity displayed by this Commission when it met for its first emergency

session, which was devoted to the human rights situation in former

Yugoslavia. In view of this sharp contrast, one cannot but wonder what causes

the World Conference process to be so polarized and, subsequently, what

positive contribution the Conference can make in these circumstances to the

United Nations work in the field of human rights.

Meanwhile, human rights are still, in practice, being violated in

numerous countries. I have already mentioned former Yugoslavia, where outrage

at the massive violation of human rights and international humanitarian law in

Bosnia-Herzegovina, confirmed by the report of the United Nations Special

Rapporteur, Mr. Mazowiecki, has increased the calls for measures against the

perpetrators of such acts. Personal accountability under international law

and the appropriate machinery to deal with the individuals responsible are

still lacking, but Security Council resolution 771 (1992) paves the way for

follow-up action by Member States. My country favours the establishment of

machinery for the systematic gathering of data concerning criminal acts

committed by individuals with regard to the Geneva conventions and the human

rights conventions. I believe that such an approach can be expected to have a

deterrent effect.

For the longer term. Member States could consider the establishment of an

international criminal court, taking into account work already undertaken by,

among others, the United Nations International Law Commission. Although it is

clear that the establishment of such a court will not come about overnight, it

is certainly worthy of careful consideration by the 'Assembly. The Assembly

might give the International Law Commission the task of developing this idea

further.

The United Nations involvement in conflict settlement has led to a wide

array of peace-keeping operations. The number of Blue-Beret military has

reached an all-time record. The Netherlands contributes sizeably to United

Nations operations worldwide and will continue to do so: taking into account

other obligations and practical limitations, all units of the Netherlands

armed forces can in principle be assigned for peace-keeping. We support the

concept of making available contingents to the United Nations at short notice

and have included this in our standing offer to the Organization.

The Preamble to the Charter clearly states the United Nations

determination to promote social progress and better standards of living. Many

countries are confronted with a lack of social stability, mass migration,

rapid urbanization and other problems which affect the fabric of society. The

world summit for social development, in principle to be held in 1995, will

allow us to address these issues at the highest levels of government. This

will help the United Nations to carry out the tasks inherent in its important

social mandate.

The Security Council has rightly qualified the proliferation of all

weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security.

This underlines the importance of combating their proliferation. Arms control

and regional, political and security arrangements have their role to play. So

have export control regimes.

The Netherlands attaches particular value to the United Nations Register

of Conventional Arms, and it is heartening to see before the Assembly the

concrete elaboration of technical procedures for this Register, agreed to by

consensus by a representative panel of governmental experts. The time has

come to render the Register fully operational starting next spring, in 1993,

and we look forward to a universal implementation of its provisions.

A convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons will be put before

this session of the Assembly. It is a magnificent achievement for all the

members of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. My country hopes that many

countries will be amongst the original signatories of the chemical weapons

convention, so that it can be strictly implemented. The Netherlands, as host

country for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),

has a special role to play, and we shall endeavour to live up to expectations.

With the chemical weapons convention achieved, it becomes all the more

important to reflect upon ways and means to strengthen the biological weapons

Convention, in particular in matters of verification. Securing compliance

with the Convention could involve more than just voluntary measures, important

though these may be.

As to the third category of weapons of mass destruction, we have to bear

in mind that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is up for extension in

1995. My country strongly advocates such an extension for an indefinite

period. We welcome the progress made recently to strengthen the

non-proliferation regime by both further accessions to the NPT and

modifications of the Tlatelolco Treaty, opening the way for the entry into

force of that Treaty for all Latin American and Caribbean States.

We are are placing ever-increasing demands upon the United Nations.

Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Somalia are only a few examples of its increasing

involvement. This is not without severe financial consequences for the

Organization. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that, at a time when

we expect the United Nations to play its demanding role, an important number

of Member States is not paying its contributions on time and in full. We

believe it is essential for the proper functioning of the United Nations that

all Member States, not just 5 per cent, meet the condition of full and timely

payment. The United Nations will not be able to fulfil its task unless

everyone picks up his share of the bill. Financial discipline on the part of

Member States is as important as it is on the part of the Organization.

With regard to peace-keeping especially, if regional responsibility for

the maintenance of peace and security is to acquire real meaning, we would

strongly favour Member States looking at the concept of burden-sharing on a

regional basis. In any case, the present short-term solutions of ad hoc

financing are neither satisfactory nor equitable. If we want a healthy United

Nations to deal with tomorrow's problems, this issue needs to be addressed

today. It would be an illusion to think that the current stopgaps, creative

as they may be, will eventually suffice.

As I have already stated, the opportunities for the United Nations to

carry out its mandate are unprecedented. This is true for a number of

conflicts which until recently seemed intractable. Cambodia is the clearest

case where a United Nations peace plan is being implemented. Angola is

another example of what the United Nations can do. The continuing dialogue by

South African parties provide us with a spark hope for the establishment of a

non-racial democracy. There is an initial involvement on the part of the

United Nations. Negotiations within the framework of the Madrid Conference

have carried the Middle East peace process further after a long period of

standstill. I hope that in this area, too, the United Nations can at some

stage become closely involved.

My friend and colleague Douglas Hurd, speaking on behalf of the European

Community and its member States, rightly observed that the challenge facing us

in this turbulent time is to reinforce the system of collective security based

on the United Nations. As I said earlier, the United Nations cannot be

everything to everybody. Nevertheless it is clear that, because of the

success our Organization has achieved over the last few years, enormous

expectations have been raised. It is our duty to see to it that the United

Nations is equipped in terms both of personnel and financing to face the tasks

with which it will of necessity be confronted.

That brings me, logically and finally, to the Secretary-General. It is a

source of the greatest satisfaction to me to see Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in

this august position. His profound international experience, his keen

intelligence and the determination which he has already shown in tackling a

number of issues make him very much the right man in the right place.

I wish to assure Mr. Boutros-Ghali of the co-operation of the Kingdom of

the Netherlands in the discharge of his arduous task.