Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1993

First of all, please

convey to His Excellency, Ambassador Insanally, my

congratulations on his election to the presidency of the forty-

eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly.

This session of the General Assembly is being held at a

point in time in which the United Nations is being asked to

play a constructive role in many fields. The onerous task of

helping to respond to this challenge rests on his capable

shoulders. I should like to wish him every success in his

task and I pledge the full support of the delegation of the

Kingdom of the Netherlands.

The world is balancing between great hope and

immense suffering. Walls have tumbled not only in Europe.

In the Middle East two courageous leaders, Prime Minister

Rabin and Chairman Arafat, have set out on the road to

reconciliation between their people. In South Africa

Mr. Mandela and President De Klerk showed similar courage

in breaking with the past and ushering in a new democratic

South Africa. At the same time, we see violence of many

kinds raking the face of the Earth. From Angola to Bosnia

villages are being destroyed and innocent people are

slaughtered in cold blood.

The future of Russia as well is crucial to our hopes. A

democratic Russia at peace with itself and its neighbours is

a major element of international stability. In Russia, too, we

see a courageous statesman trying to break with the past:

President Boris Yeltsin. I join many others in expressing my

full support for his efforts to consolidate democracy in

Russia.

The end of the cold war created a historic opportunity

to shape a more just and peaceful world. History will judge

us severely if we let this opportunity slip through our hands.

Strengthening international peace and security involves

a broad range of efforts. It is now widely recognized that

"security" cannot be viewed in military or political-military

terms alone. A broader definition is called for. Indeed, last

year’s summit meeting of the Security Council emphasized

that non-military sources of instability in the economic,

social, humanitarian and ecological fields can be threats to

peace and security as well. The traditional distinction

between conflicts between States and conflicts within States

is also becoming blurred. Bloodshed within a State tends,

sooner or later, to spill across national borders. This, of

course, raises the issue of sovereignty. How do we define

sovereignty at a time of increasing interdependence and

increasing mutual vulnerability? Sovereignty is certainly an

important principle of international law. But this principle

can never have been intended to shield from the outside

world dictators who massacre their own people. Nor can it

be intended to allow the perpetuation of large-scale suffering

and death in a State that has collapsed into anarchy. At

times the international community can indeed have a moral

duty to intervene. And at times it can be necessary for the

United Nations to take over the de facto exercise of

sovereignty in such a shattered State to allow it to be rebuilt.

We must hope that this will succeed in Somalia. We can

take heart from current developments in Cambodia, which

prove that such ambitious ventures can succeed.

A number of recent resolutions of the Security Council

have broken new ground by extending international

responsibility to encompass the plight of individual countries

such as Somalia and Bosnia. Thus the definition of what

constitutes a threat to international peace and security has

gradually been widened.

In his recent speech in Quebec, Secretary-General

Boutros Boutros-Ghali discussed the issue of "conflict

situations within nations". He said:

"It is these new conflicts which are most

threatening to international peace today and which

are most damaging to the rights of individuals".

On that occasion the Secretary-General called for "a

new diplomacy for democracy and human rights". I believe

22 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

that this idea is a valuable addition to our "Agenda for

Peace".

Let me mention here the United Nations Conference on

Human Rights, which opened up new possibilities for

improving the protection of human rights. After a difficult

start, the outcome of the Conference was certainly gratifying.

The Final Document contains important recommendations

for further steps, which should now be implemented.

Thus, the Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to

underscore the urgent appeal of the Conference to the

Secretary-General and the General Assembly to increase

drastically the funding of the United Nations Centre for

Human Rights. It is of crucial importance that in the course

of this session of the General Assembly the post of high

commissioner for human rights be created, and the broad

outline of the mandate established. This session will also

provide us with an opportunity to tackle one of the most

heinous categories of human rights violations - that of grave

war crimes - through the establishment of the International

War Crimes Tribunal. The Kingdom of the Netherlands,

with its rich tradition in the field of international law, is

proud to have been asked to host the Tribunal in The Hague.

The increasing responsibilities that the United Nations

is called upon to shoulder emphasize the twin requirements

of legitimacy and effectiveness. This brings us to the heart

of the debate on enlargement of the Security Council.

Clearly, we must be careful not to jeopardize the

decision-making ability of the Security Council by making

it unwieldy. However, I would favor extension of the

Council by the inclusion of a few major countries, provided

that they were willing and able to carry the share of

collective responsibility that went with their membership.

The "Agenda for Peace" invites us to take a broader

view of the task of maintaining peace and security. It

rightly stresses the need for early warning and early action

with regard to a crisis; or - even better - preventive action.

Developments in the former Yugoslavia and in other trouble

spots of the world have once again confirmed that the longer

a crisis is allowed to fester, the more difficult it is to bring

it under control, and the higher the cost of such action.

I believe that, in this light, we should try to rethink the

interrelationship of the various instruments of crisis

management. Diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions and

military pressure should not necessarily be viewed as

sequential but, rather, as an integrated set of instruments.

Peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building

require the full range of United Nations instruments,

including those of the humanitarian and socio-economic

sectors.

The enormous increase in the number and scope of

United Nations peace-keeping operations confronts us all

with a daunting task. Moreover, in many cases the

environment in which these operations take place has

changed: whereas, previously, peace-keeping operations

tended to be conducted in a benign environment, where all

parties benefited from the implementation of a limited

mandate, now peace-keepers often operate in a hostile

climate, where one or more parties frown upon the United

Nations presence and the Organization’s mandate. This

means that many operations these days are fraught literally

with physical danger for United Nations personnel - civilian

as well as military - and that privileges and immunities are

often violated. No longer does the blue flag automatically

command respect, and this directly affects the credibility of

the United Nations. Consequently, mandates now tend to be

stronger than before, and often they are explicitly based

upon Chapter VII of the Charter.

The changing character of peace-keeping operations

requires personnel with different qualifications. Well-trained

soldiers used to be able to do the job; today we require also

specialized units in the field of logistics, staff officers with

experience in multinational operations, mine-clearing experts,

and so on. On the civilian side, police officers, electoral

experts, administrators and human-rights specialists are

indispensable for integrated operations.

Increasing recourse to the United Nations, particularly

when it comes to initiating peace operations, is pushing the

United Nations to the limits of its organizational and

financial resources. This means that in the future the United

Nations will have to rely more on regional organizations and

structures to carry out peace operations and other missions.

The Charter makes provision for this, and the

Secretary-General has advanced a similar proposal in his

"Agenda for Peace". On one hand, this will relieve the

United Nations of some of its commitments; on the other, it

will enable regional organizations or structures with greater

first-hand knowledge of the conflicts in their parts of the

world to contribute more effectively to resolution of the

underlying problems.

There are no standard formulas which dictate how these

interlocking institutions should interact, and each case will

have to be looked at individually to determine which form

of cooperation is most suitable.

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 23

The Kingdom of the Netherlands has consistently

endeavoured to make a high-grade contribution to effective

peace operations, to which we feel committed as a Member

of the United Nations. The present reorganization of the

Netherlands armed forces is specifically geared to enabling

our country to participate even more broadly, speedily and

effectively in future peace-keeping operations.

The Netherlands believes that adequate preparation and

efficient supervision are crucial to the success of peace

operations and has accordingly made a number of military

officials available to the United Nations.

As peace operations increase in number and scope, so

does the need for support from the Secretariat. The

Secretariat should be able to expand - and to contract - in

proportion to the need for peace-keeping tasks. Whenever

expansion is required it should take place at an early stage.

The preparation, planning and budgeting that precede the

actual operation are precisely the elements that are essential

to its success. The budgets currently proposed to the

General Assembly for setting up new peace operations are

inadequate. This not only makes it difficult for the Member

States to reach decisions on the funding of operations, but

also indicates that, at the time the budgets are presented,

there is no complete picture of the way the operation is to be

set up. Obviously, if the number of peace operations

decreases, the additional staff at the Secretariat will also no

longer be necessary. What I am suggesting here is that any

reinforcement be temporary, flexible and prompt.

Apart from proper planning and training, adequate

staffing and a satisfactory level of supervision - all of which

are indispensable to the success of a peace operation - it is

important that United Nations peace forces be on the spot as

soon as possible after the decision to deploy them has been

made. Otherwise, there is a danger that hostilities will be

resumed and thus that the basis for successful

implementation of the Security Council mandate will have

disappeared before the forces are in position. Speed is

therefore of the essence if the use of greater force is to be

avoided.

This is possible only if there is a clear picture of the

forces that can be made available to the United Nations at

short notice. In this connection, the Netherlands welcomes

the formation of the stand-by forces planning team, which is

engaged in formulating a concept and drawing up an

inventory of rapid deployment forces. The Netherlands has

undertaken to communicate by the end of 1993 which Dutch

units could be eligible for designation as stand-by forces.

The final decision concerning possible deployment of troops

will of course always rest with the Netherlands Government.

The growing demands on the United Nations system

can be met only if standards of management, administration

and accountability are high. The responsibility for

determining and maintaining these standards lies first and

foremost with ourselves as Member States. It is our

responsibility to indicate clear priorities, to ensure

consistency in the decisions taken by different United

Nations commissions and governing bodies, and to provide

the financial resources required to meet agreed priorities.

Much criticism levelled against the Organization

indicates a genuine need to improve the functioning and

management of the Secretariat. Part of this criticism has its

roots in the way Member States discharge their

responsibilities: the failure of Governments to set priorities,

the adoption of resolutions with unclear objectives and the

failure to pay assessed contributions cannot be blamed on

the Secretariat.

I am convinced that the vast majority of United Nations

staff members are dedicated and loyal international civil

servants. We owe them our respect. In areas ranging from

the direct provision of health care to non-proliferation of

nuclear weapons, many of them work under difficult

conditions, some even risking their lives.

But despite the quality and commitment of its staff, the

Secretariat should take a long hard look at its own

management structure. Key phrases such as management by

objectives, transparency and accountability must become

household words in United Nations vocabulary. Line

managers must be given greater responsibility and should be

held accountable for the attainment of predetermined

objectives.

Moreover, the Secretariat should respond to criticism in

a more satisfactory manner: first of all, by ensuring that

justified criticism is acted upon and that corrective measures

are taken without delay; and, secondly, by promptly refuting

false allegations. In short, the public relations of the United

Nations need improvement.

The Secretary-General has taken several commendable

initiatives to restructure the Secretariat. The first changes

were introduced in the political sectors, and this year the

social and economic sectors were reorganized. This

restructuring has provided a solid basis for improving

effectiveness and coordination. But further measures are

required. It is important to maintain the momentum and to

24 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

provide clear perspectives for United Nations staff members:

they should not be kept in the dark about their future status

and about the direction of reform. Lingering uncertainty has

affected staff morale and thus staff effectiveness.

I have already said that Member States have a

responsibility to provide financial resources for agreed

priorities and mandated activities. The United Nations

cannot be run on a shoestring. Year after year the

Organization suffers from long delays in the receipt of

assessed contributions. As a result, mandated activities can

be implemented only in part or after substantial delay. In

the area of peace-keeping, troop contributors unfortunately

have to be prepared and able to provide long-term advance

financing for peace-keeping operations.

This lack of discipline among Member States forces the

Secretariat to spend a great deal of energy attempting to

solve incessant liquidity problems. The painful paradox is

that the Secretariat’s relative success at shoestring budgeting

seems to contribute to a further deterioration in payment

discipline among Member States. Moreover, the burden of

keeping the United Nations in business now lies unfairly

with those Member States who make their payments

promptly and in full.

A number of Member States appear to make partial

payments as an expression of their dissatisfaction with

certain aspects of the Organization’s work. The United

Nations does not serve an à la carte menu: dissatisfaction

should be voiced in debate and by force of argument, not by

withholding assessed contributions.

We shall be considering the recommendations of the

Volcker-Ogata report on the financing of the United Nations

system during this session. The merits of many of the

recommendations are obvious, but generally speaking they

can only help to alleviate the immediate problems; they do

not go to the heart of the matter. Ultimately, the only

solution to the Organization’s financial problems - and this

cannot be stated often enough - is prompt and full payment

of assessed contributions by all Member States.

While we insist that Member States meet their financial

obligations, we also expect the Secretariat to use its financial

resources in an efficient and effective manner. Some

Member States have suggested the establishment of new

financial control mechanisms. These proposals may have

merits, but we should not lose sight of the fact that a number

of control mechanisms already exist. I believe that a critical

review of the functioning of the present mechanisms is in

order before we decide upon new structures.

But auditing alone is insufficient. The structure of the

Organization must be such that financial and administrative

mismanagement is prevented. Line managers, for example,

must be held accountable for budgets under their control. In

recent years the Netherlands delegation has presented several

ideas aimed at the improvement of the management of

United Nations programmes, and these have subsequently

been adopted by the General Assembly.

In addition, I advocate greater cost-awareness, not only

among United Nations staff but also, and especially, among

Member States. It is relatively simple to request the

Secretary-General to undertake new activities, call additional

meetings or produce reports on a variety of issues. But we

must ask ourselves each time whether these requests meet a

real need, as they compete for strained financial and staff

resources.

Although the resources of the United Nations are

limited, genuine priorities must be met. In this respect, at

this session the General Assembly will face a particularly

difficult task. It will have to determine which activities will

receive priority under the regular budget for 1994 and 1995.

As new priorities emerge, a number of activities will have to

be reduced or even eliminated altogether. We have to live

within our means. The Netherlands believes that additional

resources are needed most to strengthen the capacity of the

United Nations in the area of human rights, to improve the

Secretariat’s capacity to plan and manage peace-keeping

activities and to ensure the effective coordination of

humanitarian and emergency operations.

So far I have addressed a number of conditions that

will have to be fulfilled if the United Nations is to respond

effectively to the new challenges confronting it. A sound

financial basis, effective management and the availability of

qualified personnel, both at the Secretariat and in the context

of peace operations in the field, are the material

requirements which must be met. However, no less crucial

is the determination actually to implement the resolutions

adopted by the Security Council. Decision-making in the

Council should reflect the combined political will of its

members - acting on behalf of the United Nations Member

States - actually to translate their words into action where

necessary, once the material conditions have been fulfilled.

Too often in the recent past, there has been a failure to take

decisive action despite a declared willingness to do so when

such action was both necessary and justified.

Irrespective of the detrimental effect this can have on

peace operations themselves, it can also cause irreparable

damage in the long term to the standing and credibility of

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 25

the United Nations as a whole. Let me be clear about this:

I am not advocating resort to military action at the drop of

a hat. But if the Security Council draws a line and says that

if the line is crossed military action will be taken, it must be

prepared to fulfil this pledge. If such a course proves

impossible, then the mandate was not adequately tailored to

the situation. If, on the other hand, the mandate is adequate

but the Council lacks the will to carry it out, its apparent

determination is nothing but an empty threat. Either way,

the credibility of the Organization is dealt a severe blow. If

this occurs too often, we run the risk that the new decisive

United Nations of the post-cold-war era will become a paper

tiger, making decisions that it cannot or will not put into

practice. This must not be allowed to happen.

Now, more than ever, we need a decisive United

Nations and a firm commitment on the part of the Member

States. The United Nations needs Member States that pay

their dues, provide the Organization with the necessary

human resources and have the political will to carry out the

decisions which they have collectively arrived at. The

Member States need a United Nations which is able to

perform those tasks, which operates efficiently and

effectively and which can be made accountable for the

resources entrusted to it. It is the wish of the Kingdom of

the Netherlands that this forty-eighth session of the General

Assembly will bring us closer to achieving these aims.