Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1997

First of all, allow me

to subscribe to the statement delivered this morning by the

Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Jacques Poos, on

behalf of the European Union. In particular, Sir, I wish to

join him in his congratulations to you on your election to

the presidency of the General Assembly.

As the year 2000 draws closer, our feelings somehow

make us ponder more keenly the achievements and

misfortunes of the present century, and make us look ahead

to the next one. As I do this, central to my thoughts is the

United Nations, an institution created when I was an

adolescent, at the end of a war whose horrors were just

then coming to light. I remember having been elated at the

time about the purposes and principles of the new

Organization, and I remember how intrigued I was to see

that, in a way, devastation and despair had given rise to the

belief that a better world could yet be built, a world marked

by peace, development and respect for human rights,

notions I was just beginning to learn about. Soon enough,

I came to realize that such a world would be rather longer

in the making than the Charter had led me to hope; that old

questions were giving way to new ones; that the United

Nations was not a panacea for all the troubles of mankind;

and, more to the point, that the United Nations could never

be stronger than its Member States collectively willed it to

be.

Yet somehow my expectations remained, expectations

which I shared with a growing audience around the globe,

and which one generation was passing on to the next.

Rightly or wrongly, nations and individuals, Governments,

civil society and the public at large: they all have

expectations about what the United Nations can do for

them, and about how it might change their lives and their

destiny for the better.

The question then is not so much whether the United

Nations can meet all of those expectations. For it cannot,

and it probably should not even try. The United Nations

has neither the mandate, nor the resources, nor the power

to be the world’s keeper. The question is rather how we

can exploit the strong points of the Charter, how we can

make the United Nations play a role that only the United

Nations can play, and how we can better equip the

Organization to do more by doing what it does better.

With that in mind, I wish to highlight three matters this

afternoon: the fitness of the Organization; the potential of

the United Nations to manage crises in the wider context

of development; and the Organization’s action in the field

of human rights.

Part of the reason why the United Nations has

problems in meeting expectations is what it has turned

into over the past 30 years: an amazing structure of

boards and committees populated by a growing

membership and assisted by an army of civil servants. For

that reason alone, the Organization has lost credibility.

Efforts to streamline and revitalize the Organization are

therefore long overdue. United Nations reform is a must.

The proposals put forward by the Secretary-General are

an important first step in that process, as the Foreign

Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Poos, said this morning, a

process that will have to incorporate more ambitious ideas

as it unfolds. The Kingdom of the Netherlands supports

the Secretary-General in his reform drive, we applaud the

fact that he has made reform his number-one agenda item,

and we welcome the reform package Mr. Kofi Annan has

put in our care.

But we should get on with it. The world cannot

afford to wait. We are looking at an Organization that is

far behind on its maintenance schedule. Yet over the past

three years, the reform debate has inched forward as if

oblivious to the need to produce results. Fortunately, the

Secretary-General has injected new momentum into the

debate, and we should all welcome this.

As we are about to engage in this “Reform

Assembly”, as the Secretary-General has called it, we

should be conscious of the underlying concerns that have

surfaced in the reform debate from time to time. These

concerns are real, and dismissing them would jeopardize

a promising outcome for the present session. Indeed,

various groups of nations have doubts about what other

groups of nations are ultimately aiming for in this

exercise. Developing countries have even expressed

misgivings about the reform process as a whole. Some of

them are clearly afraid that major Western Governments

15

are out to recast the United Nations as an institution that

would run on the lowest possible budget and concentrate on

peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and human rights. Another

concern is that the development programme of this

Organization — perhaps its single most important

achievement over the past 30 years — might actually suffer

as a result of reform.

Understandably, many nations see the decline in recent

years of official aid levels as the writing on the wall. They

are disheartened by the empty promises of Rio de Janeiro

in 1992. Moreover, they are worried about the current

financial crisis of the United Nations. And finally, a handful

of nations describe the Secretary-General’s proposals as a

“northern” package — one that caters mainly to the needs

of the industrialized world.

Instead, developing nations would wish to see the

United Nations strengthened in what to them is perhaps its

most critical field of action, a field of action that

corresponds to one of the main purposes mentioned in the

Charter: social and economic development. They rightly

argue that if the United Nations membership wants to be

serious about that objective, it needs to equip the

Organization accordingly. And so, in their view, more

resources should flow into the Organization. Before

consenting to change anything, they are inclined to play it

safe and to hold on to what is there.

This line of thought, assuming I am reading it

correctly, calls for comments. My first remark is that,

clearly, the Secretary-General was well-advised in having

most of his package focus on the economic and social

sectors. This is indeed the area that commands the widest

interest among the membership. If we look at the merits of

the package, it seems fair to say that many industrialized

nations might have wanted to see more ambitious and

comprehensive proposals. Still, speaking for the

Netherlands Government, I would argue that the present

package of reform measures is well-directed, substantial and

worthwhile. Evidently, the Secretary-General, on the basis

of consultations which only he could undertake, has

concluded that the contents of the package represent the

maximum of what is achievable in the present state of play.

And we should all accept that as a given.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that reform

might strengthen the development sector of the United

Nations to the point where it can actually deliver better

service with the resources that are presently available. This

exercise is not about cutting costs. Yet a leaner and meaner

Organization might give better value for the money. At the

same time, we welcome the idea of a development

dividend, as put forward by the Secretary-General.

A stronger development sector may help make the

United Nations a more attractive Organization not only to

recipients, but to donor countries as well. Voluntary

contributions should not come only from the same small

group of traditional donors year after year. For a long

time now, the Netherlands has been among the top

contributors to the United Nations system, and we intend

to remain so. We appreciate the spectacular gesture by

Mr. Ted Turner. But donor contributions should also

come from those nations that fall far below the 0.7 per

cent mark, as well as from newly industrialized countries

in Asia and elsewhere.

Finally, all Member States should become current

and stay current on their financial obligations under the

regular and peacekeeping budgets; and payments should

be prompt, in full and certainly without conditions.

All in all, the heart of the matter is not about core

concepts and not about mindset; it is about trust. It is

about feeling comfortable with the idea that among 185

Member States, a difference of views is inevitable,

particularly when they are asked to discuss such a wide-

ranging matter as the future of this Organization.

We have arrived at a crossroads where we face a

critical choice. This is a moment when we have to rise

above the level of squabbling over details in working

groups. No doubt, we all have a point to raise, a question

to ask and a change to make. But that avenue would lead

us nowhere, for soon enough the package would fall

apart. Now is the time to start trusting each other. This is

a time for vision and political courage. We, as statesmen,

should be ready to accept our responsibility in this regard,

to join forces and to forge a breakthrough. We should all

rise to the occasion and accept the package of the

Secretary-General as it is before us now and work out the

details and implementation later. Endorsement in general

terms needs to be expressed before we all adjourn next

December. Without such endorsement, the momentum in

the reform process will be lost.

We, the Member States of the United Nations,

pledged ourselves, in the words of the Charter:

“to take effective collective measures for the

prevention and removal of threats to the

peace”.

16

Next to the United Nations development effort,

peacekeeping and peace-building are perhaps the most

visible part of what the United Nations does — an

impression refreshed by Cable News Network (CNN)

almost daily. More importantly, those who are on the run,

who are afraid for their lives, who watch their homesteads

invaded, who are occupied and repressed, who look

starvation and genocide in the face — they have

expectations of the United Nations. They expect the

Organization to bail them out.

We need to improve the capacity of the United

Nations to deal with crises, be they military, political or

humanitarian ones, whether man-made or not. There is

considerable room for improvement here, as illustrated by

the situations in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and Zaire. As we

speak, innocent blood is flowing in many places around the

world. Yet all too often the United Nations remains

impotent. We cannot allow this to continue. Here again lies

a major area where reform is indispensable, and the

Secretary-General has duly underlined this.

A number of Member States, including the Kingdom

of the Netherlands, have been trying to develop the concept

of a standby high-readiness brigade within the framework

of the United Nations standby agreements. They have been

making modest progress over the last three years. A rapidly

deployable headquarters is now being established.

Tomorrow a small group of nations will informally

deliberate on how to promote further steps. Several other

initiatives are under way, including regional ones. Given the

complexities, this is going to be an incremental process, but

one where we cannot afford to let up.

The real test is where to position peacekeeping in the

wider context of the overall concerns of the United Nations.

Our agenda should be wider and should include conflict

prevention and peace-building.

The difficulty we need to address here is how to

integrate different policy instruments — political, military,

relief, rehabilitation and social and economic development

— into one comprehensive framework. Crises require a

coherent and effective international response, a response

that should integrate preventive diplomacy, political

mediation and humanitarian relief, but also social action,

economic alternatives and cultural communication. In sum:

development.

Of course, prevention is the key. The United Nations

can be much more effective when we invest in prevention.

Diplomacy, economic sanctions, arms embargoes and

political pressure will reduce risk and costs as compared

to military intervention in an escalated conflict. We could

avoid the loss of life and escape generalized human

misery. As a result of timely prevention, we could also

avoid the immense costs for rehabilitation, resettlement

and reconstruction that arise after violence is over.

Military intervention, under United Nations auspices, for

humanitarian purposes may be necessary in certain

conflict situations. But it should always be a means of

last resort. Intervention implies that prevention has failed.

The link between development on the one hand and

peace and security on the other is a tenuous one in the

United Nations system. Yet experience has proved that

making the link is imperative. We need to find the best

combination of conflict management, humanitarian

assistance and social and economic programmes to pave

the way for sustainable development and for sustainable

peace.

In San Francisco we promised to promote and

encourage

“respect for human rights and for fundamental

freedoms for all”.

It is a pledge we will have to renew again and again,

perhaps indefinitely. Yet such a pledge may not

degenerate into lipservice. Commitments must be turned

into reality; obligations must be implemented. We cannot

let our guard down as we face reports on violations of

human rights. Torture is still being practised on a wide

scale. People continue to disappear. Arrest and detention

without cause take place routinely. And freedom of the

press is non-existent in too many countries.

Still, we recognize that human rights are in better

shape worldwide than they were 10 years ago, and

certainly 50 years ago. Totalitarian regimes have all but

disappeared; democracy is on the rise. Also, there is more

interest than ever before in the triangle of democracy,

good governance and human rights.

Today, human rights are well established as an

important objective in their own right and a major field of

activity for the United Nations. But, perhaps more

important, human rights have become a leitmotif in a

wide variety of other areas of United Nations policy, from

sustainable development to population, from trade to

humanitarian aid, and from peacekeeping to human

settlements. That human rights is a “cross-cutting” issue

is evident from the reform proposals of the Secretary-

17

General and from the way he has revised the top

management structure in the Secretariat — both of which

we welcome warmly.

Expectations on what the United Nations can achieve

in the field of human rights have run high, among victims

of human-rights violations, among mothers of the

disappeared, among grass-roots groups, and among

non-governmental organizations. Then again, there are

Governments that expect the United Nations to stay out of

their precincts entirely: Governments that accept the

universality of human rights, but only as a debating point;

Governments that accept the United Nations actions against

human rights-violations, but only at a theoretical level and

not when it concerns them.

All in all, the instruments the United Nations can

apply have become the core of an extensive machinery that

in many cases has worked strikingly well. Examples are

numerous and expanding. I refer to such diverse methods

as international dialogue, the integration of human rights

activities into cooperation arrangements, the work of human

rights field offices, human rights education and

strengthening regional supervisory machinery.

More recently, a new High Commissioner for Human

Rights took up her position. If this is indeed the age of

human rights, as the Secretary-General says, then

Mrs. Mary Robinson will be one of its key personalities.

We wish her courage and wisdom in her new assignment,

and she can be sure of our commitment.

One major platform in the realization of human rights

and the international administration of justice is soon to

take its definitive shape. Next summer, a diplomatic

conference will convene in Rome — we should all be

grateful to the Italian Government for hosting it — that

will, hopefully, adopt a convention establishing an

international criminal court. Once established, the court will

be the natural counterpart to the International Court of

Justice. My Government is looking forward with

anticipation to this new offspring in the international legal

order, and I take pride in announcing that my country is

offering to house the seat of the court, in the city of The

Hague.

The fitness of the United Nations as an Organization,

its capacity to manage crises in the wider context of

development, and its action in the field of human rights are

areas of ongoing concern to all Member States. This

Assembly will continue to address them, either on their

own merits or in the context of United Nations reform. The

United Nations is expected to perform in these areas and

to produce results. Yet there is only one way this is going

to happen: if all of us join forces, join forces to make the

United Nations a viable and credible institution, join

forces to make it a centre for harmonizing the actions of

nations in the attainment of these common ends. For only

then will we keep the promise of San Francisco.