Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2010

The Headquarters

of the United Nations is currently undergoing a major

renovation, and that is a good thing. It is good because

the building no longer meets the requirements of the

new century. In the meantime, work goes on as usual,

27 10-55103

and here we all are, discussing the big issues of the

day.

Of course, the parallel is obvious. The United

Nations system itself has now reached a certain age

and is also in need of renovation. And in this sense,

too, the day-to-day work of the United Nations must go

on, for we cannot afford to take a break from tackling

the global problems we face. The United Nations may

be under renovation, but it still has to stay open for

business.

It was 65 years ago that the United Nations was

established in San Francisco. There, and at Bretton

Woods, the world’s leaders laid the foundations for a

multilateral system that would be built upon the

smoking ruins of the Second World War. This system

has demonstrated its usefulness, but it is based on post-

war realities, not on the international balance of power

and the global problems of today.

I use the word “renovation”, because we do not

need to build from scratch. Over the past 65 years, the

system has more than proved its worth. There is

nothing wrong with the foundations or the basic

structure. Besides, experience has taught us that a

practical step-by-step approach is a more effective way

to reform a large organization than reliance on a “big-

bang” strategy. Or, as Dag Hammarskjöld, one of the

great leaders of the United Nations, put it, “Constant

attention by a good nurse may be just as important as a

major operation by a surgeon”.

Today, I would like to look briefly at three of the

core tasks of the United Nations in order to show how

the Dutch Government views various concrete reforms

in practical terms. Those tasks relate to human rights,

the international legal order, and peace and security.

Let me begin, however, with the background to these

renovations, using my own experience as a guide,

starting with the question of why they are necessary.

In human terms, 65 years is often an age at which

we start to take things easier. Unfortunately, that is not

an option for the United Nations, for despite all our

efforts, peace, security, legal certainty and

development are still not guaranteed for everyone. In

fact, since the United Nations was established, the

global challenges facing us have only grown larger.

Consider the climate crisis, or the energy and food

crisis, or the international economic crisis that has

shown so clearly how closely connected everything is

in our time. We need each other more than ever before,

and we need the United Nations as the organization

uniting us more than ever before.

In this light, I applaud the choice of theme for

this sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly:

“Reaffirming the central role of the United Nations in

global governance” — although I must confess I would

have replaced the word “reaffirming” with

“recovering”, because ground has clearly been lost, as

has become especially apparent in the last few years.

The Group of 20, and not the United Nations, has taken

the lead in tackling the economic crisis, for example.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference could

have delivered more if the world had been able to unite

behind the tough decisions. And where the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) are concerned, we see

mixed results. A lot has been achieved, but on some

Goals we are lagging far behind, thanks to a

fragmented and defective international aid architecture.

We discussed this earlier in the week at the MDG

summit.

What these examples show is that the United

Nations is losing its position — and its convening

power — as the obvious global platform for discussion

and decision-making. It pains me to say that. However,

I also have every faith that the United Nations can

continue in the future to claim its vital role as the

world’s overarching governance organization.

In my view, the end of the cold war freed the

United Nations from a long period of confrontation and

stagnation. In its wake the international agenda was

redefined with great speed and vigour. Relatively new

topics like the environment and climate change, social

themes and gender issues began to claim our attention.

The international legal order was strengthened by new

international tribunals, the International Criminal Court

and a growing number of peace missions under the

United Nations flag — and of course, in setting the

MDGs at its Millennium Summit (resolution 55/2), the

United Nations showed how ambitious it can be.

The United Nations is only able to achieve such

things because every country is involved and everyone

has a voice. That is the power of the United Nations,

but also its greatest weakness. Inclusion does not only

foster legitimacy — the unique selling point of the

United Nations. It also leads to sluggish decision-

making, politicized relationships and a bureaucratic

structure that lacks transparency. I believe that anyone

10-55103 28

familiar with the international circuit over the past 10

years will recognize this picture.

It is often said, “If the United Nations did not

exist it would have to be invented” — and indeed, a

global organization with universal membership is

essential. Still, no matter how representative an

organization may be, it will lose its relevance if it does

not deliver sufficient results. In short, legitimacy and

effectiveness are two sides of the same coin.

The Dutch Government is convinced that the

United Nations can improve its effectiveness and

decisiveness and so increase its legitimacy and public

support. This can be done by utilizing the United

Nations and its process to solve problems and by

putting practical considerations first when problems

are tackled. The Netherlands wants to see that happen

and will work to make it happen. We will do so as a

founding Member of the United Nations but also

together with our partners in the European Union, of

which we also are a founding member. The European

Union is strongly committed to the United Nations, and

we subscribe to its contributions to secure the future of

the United Nations.

That brings me to the first of the three core tasks

I mentioned at the start of my speech: human rights.

This, without question, is an area in which the United

Nations has achieved great success in setting standards,

with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an

unshakeable basis. Unfortunately, though, it still falls

short in enforcing those standards. We still hear reports

every day of torture, unfair trials, curbs on freedom of

expression and other human rights violations. The

Dutch Government considers it unacceptable that

people, often women, are still being stoned to death in

2010. We must continue to resist this practice with

every ounce of our being.

The Dutch Government urges that the capacity of

the human rights machinery, and particularly the

Human Rights Council, be strengthened. To start with,

a clear division of tasks between the Human Rights

Council and the Third Committee of this General

Assembly is needed. Overlap and lack of clarity make

it too easy for some regimes to distract attention from

human rights violations. The Netherlands will press for

clarity.

Of course, human rights are closely related to the

international legal order, the second area I want to

touch on. As you know, this is a subject very close to

the Netherlands’ heart. The city of The Hague is not

only the centre of Dutch democracy, it is also known as

the legal capital of the world — and we are proud of

that. More important, though, of course, is the fact that

the international institutions based in The Hague are

sending a clear message with the work they undertake.

The international community will not allow human

rights violations and crimes against humanity to go

unpunished. That applies to the various ad hoc

tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal

for the Former Yugoslavia. It also applies to the

International Court of Justice and of course the

International Criminal Court (ICC).

Over the last 20 years international criminal law

has developed at an impressive rate. Today, those who

commit the most terrible crimes, wherever in the world

they may be, know that their chances of being called to

account are growing by the day. Now we must act

boldly. We must strengthen these institutions’ visibility,

credibility and authority. We can do that by improving

international cooperation on investigations and

prosecutions, by increasing compliance with the

relevant Security Council resolutions and by pushing

for as many countries as possible to sign the Rome

Statute and to conduct themselves according to both its

letter and its spirit. With that in mind, I say that it is

unacceptable to the Dutch Government that someone

like President Al-Bashir of the Sudan, against whom an

arrest warrant is outstanding, should be allowed to

move freely in a country that is an ICC partner.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about

the broad topic of peace and security. At this moment,

there are some 100,000 people taking part in United

Nations peace missions around the world. So no one

can deny that the United Nations plays a leading role in

this area — and rightly so, because it is precisely in

matters of war and peace that legitimacy and resolve

are most essential. Such legitimacy and resolve can

only be provided by the United Nations and the

Security Council.

We saw only recently, in the incident involving

the Republic of Korea’s naval ship, the Cheonan, how

difficult and shaky the position of the Security Council

can sometimes be. On the one hand, the Council

condemned the attack unanimously and in strong

terms, and that has to be applauded. On the other hand,

the Council remained silent on the question of blame,

which is an extremely hard thing to bear for the

survivors and the victims’ loved ones.

29 10-55103

It is precisely in order to guarantee the legitimacy

and strength of the Security Council in the future that

the Dutch Government continues to support reforms of

the Council that reflect the geopolitical realities of

today and not of 1945. Naturally, the exact substance

of those reforms is still open to debate. But it is clear

to the Netherlands that there should be more room for

more countries to join the discussions and exert

influence: room for large countries that in 1945 were

not yet large enough or were not yet Members of the

United Nations; but also room for smaller nations that,

as troop-supplying countries or as interested parties in

a particular region, should have the right to speak. I

would add immediately that countries that want

influence should realize that this entails financial,

political and moral obligations. Or, in the words of

Winston Churchill, the price of greatness is

responsibility.

I have briefly sketched why the United Nations is

in need of renovation. I hope I have made clear that its

relevance is tied not only to its legitimacy but also to

its effectiveness. And I have suggested the direction the

renovation might take in three specific areas. One thing

I have not yet done, however, is to reaffirm that the

Netherlands, in keeping with its long international

tradition, will continue to work for quality in the

United Nations system. Together with others, together

with all represented in this Hall, we will work in the

knowledge that this renovation, like all our activities,

requires us to pool our resources. Or, as the United

Nations Charter says: “unite our strength” and

“combine our efforts”. Let those words inspire us in

the work that lies ahead.