Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1994

First of all, I

should like to extend congratulations to the President on

his election.

My colleague Foreign Minister Kinkel, on behalf of

the European Union, has just given a broad overview of

our approach to the United Nations. The great challenges

which the United Nations faces today are well

summarized in his statement.

The idea that the world is divided into a North and

a South with greatly diverging interests is being replaced

by a growing awareness that the fundamental problems

we face are common, global problems - to ensure

sustainable development, to protect our environment, to

solve the population problem, to prevent social

20

disintegration, to uphold justice and to protect the dignity

of the human person.

The United Nations will have to play a central role in

our common efforts to find answers to these global

problems. There is a need for coherent, integrated policies

for problems which have so far been treated largely as

separate questions - problems of peace and security,

development, trade, democracy and human rights, the

environment. The United Nations "Agenda for Peace" and

its agenda for development are closely connected.

By building on its comparative advantages the United

Nations can play its role as the primary institution for

global international cooperation which is envisaged in its

Charter. We, the Member States, will have to enable the

United Nations to do so.

Are we really providing this body with the necessary

means to live up to expectations? It has become

fashionable, when expectations are not met, to blame

shortcomings on the United Nations itself. I tend to take a

different view. Member States are to be blamed at least as

much as the Organization which struggles as our faithful

servant. Rather than making the United Nations our

scapegoat, Member States have first of all to make an

honest and serious effort, through timely and full payment

of financial contributions, to provide it with the means to

play the role we expect it to play.

But we need a change in attitude as well. As

inhabitants of the global village, we can no longer remain

indifferent to the fate of our fellow human beings, even if

they live on a different continent. CNN brings their

problems right into our living rooms, visible, immediate,

inescapable. Rwanda, Haiti and former Yugoslavia, Goma

and Vukovar - tragedies such as these touch the conscience

of citizens in all parts of the globe.

How do we respond to this? The prerequisites for

successful action by the United Nations are credibility and

legitimacy. To put it differently: the United Nations must

become an institution in which all peoples of the world are

fairly represented and have a fair say in decision-making.

There must be a balance between burdens and benefits for

all and, most importantly, there must be an awareness at the

level of both Governments and individuals that the United

Nations can make a difference.

The paradox is that the distance between decision-

makers and those represented seems to grow, in spite of the

increase in the speed and volume of communications. This

does not affect solely the credibility - and therefore the legitimacy -

of the United Nations. The credibility of State structures

at the national level is equally at stake.

Everywhere in the world, including in what used to

be called the first, the second and the third worlds, we see

a profound cynicism about government and Governments.

This is partly due to the fact that certain expectations

cannot any longer be met. The power of Governments

has been diminished because many important activities,

especially in the economic sphere, have moved from

Government into private or corporate hands. They are

not quite outside the sphere of direct action of

Governments and, for that matter, of the United Nations.

However, a substantial part of this widespread

cynicism stems from the perception of a lack of common

decency, from the feeling that Governments and

institutions work for their own good in the first place and

that the interest of the people whom they are supposed to

serve comes second.

In this respect I think we can take heart from the

success of the International Conference on Population and

Development held recently at Cairo. That success was

built on a formula that essentially amounted to common

decency, namely, to face the population problem not

through coercion and discrimination but by giving people

the means to follow, freely and responsibly, the path of

their own choice. This should serve as an example for us

as Governments with regard to other matters as well.

If we apply the criteria of fairness and decency to

the United Nations, then it is clear that major adjustments

are needed. In some fields work on this task has started

and a number of preliminary steps have been taken - for

instance, the appointment of an inspector general. We

should not deceive ourselves, however, into believing that

everything is therefore well. Good bookkeeping is

essential, but fraud never constituted the core of the

United Nations problem. Even good management,

immensely important though it is, is only a necessary

tool.

Let me mention some of my priorities for an agenda

for a revitalized United Nations. The tremendous

increase in peace-keeping operations clearly signals a

change in the role of the Security Council. The emphasis

is more and more on cooperative crisis management,

resolution and prevention in various regional conflicts.

The permanent members of the Council are expected to

take a leading role when countries are requested to

21

contribute the means needed to implement the Council’s

decisions. In this new era the yardstick for great-Power

status is no longer the number of nuclear bombs but now

the concrete contribution that a country is prepared and able

to make to the cooperative effort to stem the tide of war,

misery and poverty in the world.

For this reason the Netherlands is in favour of the

admission of Germany and Japan to the Security Council as

permanent members. Both countries have an impeccable

record as Members of the United Nations. They have

expressed their willingness to shoulder a larger part of the

common burden, and they have the power and the means to

do so. Their permanent presence on the Security Council

would therefore significantly strengthen the authority and

capabilities of the United Nations as a whole. The question

of equitable representation of various geographical regions

will also have to be addressed for the sake of the Council’s

legitimacy in the eyes of the world at large. All in all, we

believe that it is possible to achieve consensus on an

expansion to a total number of seats somewhere in the low

twenties. This would indeed be a most significant step

towards improving the credibility and legitimacy of the

United Nations.

At least as important however is enhanced

transparency and closer coordination between the Security

Council and the United Nations membership at large. My

own country’s position may illustrate this point. The

Kingdom of the Netherlands is de facto the eleventh highest

contributor to the budget of the United Nations. We are in

tenth position in terms of the numbers of military personnel

contributed to peace-keeping operations, yet we are not

involved in the Council’s decisions in which the mandates

and modalities of these operations are laid down.

As in government, there should be no taxation without

representation. The members of the Security Council have

to remember that they exercise their authority on behalf of

the entire membership of the Organization. For that

purpose they need the confidence of the General Assembly.

The Council can no longer operate as an exclusive club.

Therefore the Netherlands is in favour of the creation of a

subsidiary organ of the Council, where all aspects of peace-

keeping operations could be discussed with major troop

contributors.

Moreover, we join those who call for systematic and

independent reporting and evaluation of peace-keeping

operations. The reports should not end up, labelled

"Confidential", in the desks of the United Nations

bureaucracy. Those who contribute and the people whom

they represent have a rightful claim to this information.

On this score as well, the principle of accountability must

urgently be introduced in the interest of the overall

credibility of the United Nations.

Another area with important potential for improving

the working of the United Nations system is that of the

regional organizations. Together with Germany, the

Netherlands has argued for a more active role for the

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

(CSCE) as the regional United Nations arrangement for

Europe. I strongly believe that the United Nations should

apply what the European Union calls subsidiarity. This

principle means that the higher level should not deal with

matters that can be dealt with satisfactorily at the lower

and more specialized level. Responsibility should be

exercised as close as possible to the grass roots.

European countries should try to solve their own

problems in the framework of the CSCE before dropping

them into the lap of the United Nations. This, however,

remains a matter for voluntary regional cooperation, and

in no way detracts from the primary responsibility of the

Security Council.

In Africa, we see encouraging signs of a

development in the same direction. In the framework of

the Organization of African Unity, as well as at regional

and subregional levels, efforts are being made to develop

a regional peace-keeping capacity. These initiatives

deserve our wholehearted support. On the other hand, the

Netherlands shares the concern of these countries that

self-reliance in this domain should not cut them off from

assistance and active involvement by the international

community through the United Nations.

In Rwanda, for instance, African countries are

contributing most of the personnel for the operation of the

United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda

(UNAMIR). Other United Nations Members have

provided equipment, logistical and financial support and

transportation. The Netherlands has made a contribution

in matériel to match the deployment of a peace-keeping

contingent by Zambia. This may provide a model for

more permanent, structural means of practical cooperation

between countries in the region and those outside - a kind

of mutual adoption arrangement.

Much has been said about the need for an enhanced

early-warning capacity. In fact, in most cases the

information was available before crises erupted into

violence. But, as the former Yugoslavia has

demonstrated, early warning is not sufficient if States are

22

not willing and ready to undertake early action once a

potential crisis has been identified.

A similar remark can be made about the United

Nations system of stand-by forces. This is an excellent

idea, and the system may serve as a useful database for the

United Nations. But it is no guarantee of greater efficiency

in all circumstances. In connection with Rwanda, the

system was put to the test for the first time. The results of

that test were extremely discouraging. None of the

countries that had indicated possible contributions were

willing to provide troops for rapid deployment. What is the

use of an instrument if the political will to use it is lacking?

Regrettably, lessons are drawn mostly when it is too

late. The human tragedy in Rwanda will always remain a

shame for the international community. Collectively, we

must acknowledge that we had ample warning of impending

disaster and that we could have done more to prevent the

genocide. In this context I have been struck by the words

of a high-ranking United Nations official:

"A mechanized brigade deployed in Kigali within 7 to

14 days might have stabilized the situation."

If this is true, then the moral dimension of our failure to

provide the United Nations with the necessary means

becomes all too apparent. If deploying a brigade could

have prevented the indiscriminate slaughter of many

hundreds of thousands, what prevented us from doing so?

Let us face it: the reason for our inaction was neither

lack of means nor lack of time. The reason was that, under

the circumstances, no Government was prepared to risk the

lives of its citizens. The physical danger was considered

too high.

How can we resolve this dilemma? Hand-wringing

will not absolve us from our responsibility in a situation of

genocide. Either we act upon our feeling of horror and

indignation, or we stop moralizing. If Member States are

not in a position to provide the necessary military

personnel, will it then not become unavoidable for us to

consider the establishment of a full-time, professional, at all

times available and rapidly deployable United Nations

brigade for this purpose - a "United Nations Legion" at the

disposal of the Security Council? Such a relatively small,

international, all-volunteer "fire brigade" may enable the

United Nations to save lives in situations such as Rwanda.

Its establishment could help to solve the dilemmas that we,

Governments, face when trying to come to grips with the

phenomenon of the failed State.

Of course, the preferable way to deal with conflicts

is by preventing them. In Europe, the discreet activities

of the High Commissioner for National Minorities

appointed by the Conference on Security and Cooperation

in Europe, and those of other actors, have undoubtedly

played a crucial role in defusing potential crises in the

Baltic and other regions. It is a fact of life in politics that

solutions and happy endings quietly achieved do not

attract the same attention as failures and disasters.

Trusted and respected personalities could play a similar

role in other regions. As Minister Hurd said last year:

for the expense involved in the deployment of one

battalion of peace-keepers, the Secretary-General can send

a great many personal representatives.

I also wish to say a few words about the aftermath

of conflicts that could not be prevented: the punishment

of those responsible for crimes against humanity. It is of

the utmost importance not only that these terrible crimes

be condemned by the international community but also

that those responsible for these crimes, as well as the

actual perpetrators, be prosecuted. Strangely enough, this

was done only at the end of the Second World War. But

now at last we see the establishment of an international

tribunal for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia

and the start of a broad discussion on a future tribunal for

Rwanda.

Punishment of war criminals and ethnic cleansers is

not a matter of revenge. It is a matter of justice and also

a matter of deterrence. Impunity encourages future

crimes against humanity. We therefore strongly support

both tribunals; as well as the early establishment of an

international criminal court that will exercise jurisdiction

with regard to serious crimes of international concern.

With the introduction of a draft statute for such an

international criminal court, a major step forward has

been made.

In closing, let me emphasize my fundamental point:

the credibility of the authority exercised by Governments

and by the United Nations. In the former Yugoslavia and

elsewhere, the world community has failed to stop the

breakdown of civil society and the descent into barbarity.

Such failures undermine people’s belief in the authority

of the United Nations, in the authority of regional

organizations, in the authority of Governments, and

indeed in public authority as such. The authority of a

national Government does not depend only on its own

credibility; it also depends on the credibility of the wider

international authority in which it participates. Therefore,

it is in our own national interest to uphold that wider

23

authority. We can only do this if we provide the United

Nations with the tools it needs to face its daunting task.