New Zealand, 1993

The United Nations

is our Organization; we are its custodians, and we have to

adjust to change. We have a huge responsibility to pass it

on in better shape than we found it. Historians in future

years will acknowledge this period of radical change.

But what are the objectives of this Organization of ours

in 1993? Well, they are not very difficult to enumerate,

because they are set out for us and by us in the Preamble to

the Charter, and they remain as valid today as they were

when they were agreed in 1945.

The first, of course, is peace, because without peace

and security no human society can flourish; then human

dignity, because if we do not treat each other with respect as

individuals, we will not do so as nations; justice, because

unless relations between nations are grounded in law, the

powerful will always be able to triumph over the weak;

social and economic progress, because without the sustained

and sustainable development of our economies, all our other

achievements will be as nothing.

I believe that to this list we must now add the

maintenance of a clean and attractive environment. We are

learning, painfully, that our planet also has rights. We

ignore them only at our peril.

These are the foundations for the vision of what the

world should be. In New Zealand, we would say that they

give opportunities to all. When the United Nations came

into existence almost 50 years ago, the vision was sharper

than the reality, but the founders of the United Nations were

certainly not deterred. They were at the watershed in the

affairs of the world. They had just experienced the awful

reality of a global conflict in which millions had died, and

they were determined to do everything in their power to

make sure that such a conflict could never occur again.

They did build well. They embodied their vision not only

in this Organization but also in a whole series of economic,

financial, social and humanitarian institutions, and they gave

it the only strength that counted: their sheer determination,

as men and women from very different countries, to make

it happen.

Only the utmost patience and perseverance has kept that

dream and that determination alive through most of the

50 years since 1945. Progress has been slow and it has been

halting. Some great things were done, but too often the

Members of the United Nations could agree only at the

lowest common denominator, a reflection of the political

gaps and strains within the United Nations membership.

There are, however, four reasons why I believe that that

long, grey era has closed.

The first is that the cold war, that shadow and threat of

a global conflict, is now over. Freed of that constraint, the

United Nations can operate, as it was intended that it should,

as the ultimate guardian of the security of all its Members,

the ultimate arbiter of world peace.

Secondly, democracy, one of the most effective

guarantors of peace between nations, is spreading. We

welcome the establishment of democratic institutions and

processes in countries that have for too long been without

them.

The third point is that in the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade Uruguay Round of multilateral trade

negotiations, the world has a major opportunity to turn its

back on protectionism and lock in the prospects for

economic growth through trade and other forms of economic

integration. Freedom and free trade go hand in hand.

Fourthly, and last, the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

and Agenda 21 contain a global consensus, a universal

determination to act to preserve our environment.

This combination of developments marks a new

watershed; if we are to keep faith with the founders of this

Organization, we must do what they did in 1945 at their

watershed, and build well, not just for ourselves, but of

course for those who follow.

On the issue of security and peacemaking, the first

point that I raised was that the elimination of confrontation

between the super-Powers has opened up new possibilities

for the practice of collective security and peacemaking. The

unfortunate consequence of 50 years of super-Power

confrontation is, paradoxically, that we are not yet very good

at working together: like a novice sports team, we are really

rather uncoordinated, sadly lacking in strategy, sadly lacking

in team skills or knowledge of the new rules, and sadly

lacking in collective determination. We cannot correct these

deficiencies overnight, but we must keep on trying to

improve.

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 39

The other paradox is that peace has not broken out

simply because the former Soviet Union and the United

States have stopped squaring off against each other. There

have been unexpected consequences: some would liken the

result to taking the lid off a pressure-cooker. Conflicts,

internal and between neighbours, seem to have burst out

everywhere. These consequences, in human terms, are

horrific.

So here we are, in the United Nations, underresourced,

undertrained and facing an enormous peacemaking, peace-

building and peace-keeping challenge. We really have no

alternative to learning as we go, and I believe that we are

doing so.

During the past year, I have spoken to soldiers and

relief workers in the field in United Nations missions as

widely spread as Somalia and Croatia, and I pay my highest

tribute to their dedication under some of the most adverse

circumstances. United Nations people are trying there, as

elsewhere, to create conditions where their work will

ultimately no longer be required. They are actually trying to

do themselves out of a job.

The Secretary-General’s document "An Agenda for

Peace" is now in a consolidation phase. The problems are

clear: rising expectations; machinery due for reform; lack of

funds; and the lack of ready, well-trained and well-equipped

forces. Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has already made some

thoughtful proposals, including sending teams to Member

States to help identify in advance resources available for the

United Nations operations. New Zealand is willing to

respond positively to this approach.

The Secretary-General has also made organizational

changes in the Headquarters departments that support peace-

keeping. The revamping of the Department of Peace-

Keeping Operations is a very good start, providing we

recognize that we need more than just a shifting of the

resources. The new philosophy of peace-building and

peacemaking must work in tandem with the well-tried and

successful peace-keeping philosophy of the past.

On the issue of safety and security of United Nations

personnel, recent peace-keeping operations have highlighted

the risks to United Nations personnel working in dangerous

and unstable situations. That does not help the recruitment

of peace-keepers, and it does not help the recruitment of

contributing countries. The United Nations must have the

means to hold personally responsible and accountable those

who attack or commit other acts of violence against the

United Nations and associated personnel.

Earlier this year the New Zealand Government took the

initial step of calling for all possible measures to ensure the

safety of United Nations personnel. We asked the Secretary-

General to report on the adequacy of existing arrangements.

His report makes a number of positive recommendations.

He has highlighted the need for the General Assembly to

elaborate a new multilateral instrument on the role the

Security Council might play in setting the appropriate

conditions designed to improve the safety of personnel.

I was very pleased just this afternoon to participate in

a Security Council meeting that adopted a resolution

welcoming the Secretary-General’s report and spelling out

the conditions the Council will impose in the future for the

protection of United Nations personnel. I was also delighted

that the General Assembly last week agreed to New

Zealand’s proposal to include a new item on the safety of

personnel in this year’s agenda. I hope that the Sixth

Committee will establish a working group to consider the

issue and make urgent progress. I hope the subject will also

be very fully discussed in all other relevant United Nations

bodies.

Of course, any mechanisms for protecting peace-keepers

must also require that parties to any conflict respect the

integrity of those personnel that have been deployed on their

behalf. Such an undertaking should, in principle, form part

of the mandate for any peace-keeping operation. The recent

practice of the Security Council of establishing clear

mandates for peace-keeping operations at the outset of

deployment is especially welcome, but there remains an onus

on a host State both to explain carefully to its people the

reason for the United Nations presence and also to take

active steps to ensure the safety of United Nations personnel.

But the purpose of peace-keeping or peacemaking and

peace-building is not solely to deal with conflicts that have

already arisen, urgent though that task is. We must improve

our capacity to prevent conflicts before they break out, and

I should like to acknowledge here the importance and

timeliness of recent improvements in conflict-resolution

mechanisms and the ongoing work on preventive diplomacy.

I welcome very warmly the contribution made by my

Australian colleague, Senator Gareth Evans, to the debate on

this subject. He has given us much food for thought and

some helpful suggestions for concrete steps we can take to

improve our performance in this area.

40 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

Disarmament measures remain a key element in conflict

prevention. This year, as the international community

moves towards the extension - I hope for an indefinite

period - of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons, the Assembly will have non-proliferation as one

of its major themes. In this regard, North Korea’s continued

evasion of its responsibilities under that Treaty demands a

firm international response.

We welcome very strongly the restraint being shown by

the nuclear-weapon States on testing and their positive

attitude towards the launching of negotiations for a

comprehensive test-ban treaty. It is not before time. New

Zealand has sponsored a draft resolution on comprehensive

test-bans for many years. Its purpose now is on the brink of

fulfillment. The subject needs to be taken up in the

Conference on Disarmament. Given the importance of the

tasks now on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament,

membership of the Conference must be open to all who have

the will to participate constructively.

In respect of conventional weaponry, we applaud the

enhancement of controls through the commencement of the

Register of conventional-arms transfers. We now have a

chemical weapons Convention in place alongside the

biological weapons Convention.

It is timely to consider what similar work can be done

in respect of conventional weapons. As disarmament moves

from the realms of Utopia into the achievable, we must lend

every effort, here in the United Nations and outside it, to

ensure disarmament’s more rapid progress. No sensible

proposal should be discarded simply for outdated ideological

reasons.

The spread of democratic institutions to every corner of

the globe is, I believe, one of the most encouraging

phenomena of recent years, and the pace is astonishing. In

the space of just 24 hours last week, the Parliament of Israel

approved a Declaration of Principles on Palestinian self-

government; the Parliament of South Africa enacted

legislation establishing the Transitional Executive Council to

take charge of that country until a democratically elected

Government is in office; and a constitutional Government

took office in Cambodia.

We welcome these historic events and the promise they

hold for a more just and prosperous existence for the peoples

of those nations. As delegations will remember, the Middle

East and South Africa dominated the political agenda of the

Assembly for many years. These positive developments in

both regions will give a new cast to the Assembly’s

deliberations.

We can also take heart from progress on another front

of long-standing concern to the Assembly. The United

Nations is now three years into the International Decade for

the Eradication of Colonialism. The good news is that we

are already seeing evidence that the goals and objectives of

the United Nations in this area are almost completely

realized. The number of Self-Governing Territories on the

United Nations list is now very small, and many of these are

exploring innovative ways to complete the decolonization

process. The recent United Nations Seminar on Colonialism,

held in Papua-New Guinea in June, confirmed this trend. It

also revealed that in some cases some very small Non-Self-

Governing Territories do not want fundamental constitutional

change thrust upon them.

New Zealand has always been a strong advocate of the

principle that in all cases decisions on self-determination are,

of course, for the local people to make. We are comfortable

with the notion that certain Territories, such as the Tokelaus,

may finally choose to develop concepts of self-government

and free association that further develop models that have

already been successfully employed for other very small

former Territories.

In that connection, and consistent with New Zealand’s

principled approach to all matters of decolonization, I am

pleased to confirm that the New Zealand Government and

the people of the Tokelaus have extended an invitation to the

United Nations to send a further visiting mission to the

Tokelaus early in 1994 to meet local leaders and, of course,

discuss recent developments.

Democracy is a sure foundation for peace between

nations. It is the political expression of that universal

respect for human rights to which we are all committed.

The Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action arising out of

this year’s World Conference on Human Rights gives some

direction to steps the Organization can take to strengthen the

observance of human rights.

I believe we should move quickly to approve a high

commissioner for human rights. The United Nations needs

an officer with a mandate to play a constructive role in

preventing, monitoring and alleviating human rights abuses

throughout the world. The Centre for Human Rights should

be given the resources to match the immense task it will

have before it. There is a clear need for an enhanced

programme of advisory services and technical assistance to

Forty-eighth session - 29 September l993 41

help countries build up their national human rights

infrastructure.

Human rights is also about recognizing the rights of

peoples to self-identity. In this, the International Year for

the World’s Indigenous People, I would like to support a

proposal that the United Nations declare a decade for

indigenous peoples. We need to build on what has been

achieved, first at Rio de Janeiro and subsequently during the

International Year world wide. This is a long-term task. It

will require a sustained and very coordinated effort.

Unhappily, our task is not just to enhance the

observance of human rights. In this last decade of the

twentieth century, we seem at times to be actually moving

backwards, witnessing the abuse and deprivation of human

rights on a scale that we really believed we had put a long

way behind us. The suffering of millions of refugees

displaced by conflict is beyond our comprehension but

cannot and should not be beyond our compassion. This

dimension is starkly evident in nearly every issue now

before the Security Council. Last June, the Office of the

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees put the

figure at 19 million people - 19 million displaced people

around the world - and it continues to rise.

It is appropriate to pay a special tribute to Mrs. Ogata

and her staff for the way in which they are meeting, often in

dangerous and trying circumstances, the challenges which

this problem brings. New Zealand has responded to these

increased demands by making a special provision for

refugees from Bosnia, Somalia and Cambodia by

establishing special programmes for particularly vulnerable

groups, such as women at risk, and by providing aid. We

now have one of the highest per capita resettlement ratios in

the world. But this is, of course, addressing the symptoms,

not the cause. The ultimate objective must be to create or

recreate conditions that allow refugees to return in safety and

dignity to their own homes and homelands.

Nor can we neglect the need to bring to justice those

who have brought about such suffering. The establishment

of a war crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is

certainly a central pillar in the international response to this

particular conflict. The full achievement of the Tribunal’s

mandate is of the highest priority. At the same time, and in

a broader context, New Zealand also welcomes the

consideration being given to the creation of an international

criminal court. We would like to see further progress on

this issue made during this session of the Assembly.

Sustainable economic growth for all countries is

essential for stability and peace in the world. A principal

determinant for that is an open, healthy and international

trading system, a system that encourages closer economic

relations and strengthened North-South exchanges. There is

no greater assistance developed countries can give to the

developing countries than to open their markets. A

satisfactory conclusion to the Uruguay Round of multilateral

trade negotiations would be of immense benefit to us all and

has been mentioned, I believe, by just about every speaker

on this rostrum during this debate.

Progress to that end in the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade, of course, has been slow, as we know.

Many deadlines have come and many deadlines have gone

without resolution. We should not be under any illusion.

Come this December, after seven years of negotiations on

the Uruguay Round, either we will have the liberalization of

multilateral trade with a benefit to all or the prospects of

avoiding global economic warfare will have suffered the

most serious setback. The New Zealand Government sees

the purpose of these negotiations being to lock in place

today the politically attainable, and to build on what might

be possible tomorrow. In preparing for that, we also have

to focus our attention on what is needed to ensure that all

countries are placed where they can reap the benefits of the

future.

We still have much to follow up from the Rio

Conference on Environment and Development. But time is

not on our side. Environmental degradation continues to

pose a serious threat to the planet and its resources, and no

country - no country - is immune from its impact. The

levels of responsibility for environmental damage may differ

from country to country, but we must face up to their

consequences together. We must meet the objectives of

Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. All countries should

move to ratify the climate and biodiversity Conventions, a

step that New Zealand took just recently. New Zealand will

contribute to the global environmental facility that is to fund

both of those Conventions. We have begun work to reduce

carbon dioxide emissions and are developing a

comprehensive strategy for reducing net greenhouse gas

emissions. We are also making excellent progress on

phasing out consumption of ozone-depleting chemicals.

New Zealand is ready to share its expertise on biological

diversity with other countries to assist them in meeting

obligations under the Conventions.

I suppose that one of the most useful exercises that we

can conclude here is to draw some lessons from the

experiences and views that I have set out. The most obvious

42 General Assembly - Forty-eighth session

one to me is that, however important it is to deal with the

particularities of human aspirations for peace, respect for the

individual, economic well-being and a good, clean

environment, one should never lose sight of the connections

between them all. The Secretary-General has pointed out

how peace, development and democracy form a mutually

reinforcing circle, and we agree. Getting the linkages right

can be as important for success as the elements of each.

Peace and security are not likely to be soundly based if

people are hungry. Economic growth cannot last if the

natural resources used to create it are not conserved. People

are not likely to make the effort required by economic

restructuring if the important choices are made for them.

Economic growth cannot be sustained if countries keep

coming up with new pretexts, such as environmental

protection, to justify excluding outside competition from

their own markets.

Human aspirations and human security must be seen in

the round. That is one of the major challenges facing the

membership of this Organization. The work done by the

United Nations in post-peace-keeping situations, I believe,

deserves renewed attention. For those countries where there

is still a need to foster economic, political and social

development, we should look at establishing a partnership

arrangement between the United Nations and the sovereign

Government. A coordinating body comprising the

Governments and a group of friends of the Secretariat could

help to ensure that the gains of peace-keeping are taken

through to reconstruction. I believe that we need a new

institutional framework to graduate problems out of the

security area and into a forum more able to cope with the

needs of redevelopment and reconstruction.

The second lesson is that we need to keep looking at

how well the United Nations is fitted to meet the challenges

it is facing and be prepared to change it where necessary.

Membership of the United Nations has continued to grow

and I warmly welcome the newest Member States.

Many speakers have referred to Security Council

reform. The Security Council is in need of early reform.

We support a modest increase in membership and a fresh

look at the institution as a whole. The possibility of some

members representing regional groupings for, say, a 10-year

period is worth considering. New Zealand will continue to

oppose any extension of veto rights.

Another imperative is for the Council’s work methods

to be improved. Wider consultation with the broader

membership of the United Nations is essential. United

Nations agencies are also ripe for restructuring. The General

Assembly has made a good start on itself. We have

streamlined the Committees, but we also must streamline the

overall workload. It is unmanageable at present.

For several years now, we have been looking hard at

ways to fund new demands on the Organization by making

compensating savings elsewhere. We still need to ask hard

questions about whether all that has been done traditionally

still needs to be done. I welcome the fact that the Secretary-

General’s budget proposals already envisage some major

steps in this area. He has also identified better contracting

as a source of further savings.

At the end of the day, however, all that can be done to

increase efficiency and cut costs will come to naught if the

financial commitment by Member States is lacking. New

Zealand pays its dues on time; most others do not. I urge

them to do so. Let us certainly go on talking about financial

reform, but let us also secure the financial basis of the

Organization while we are doing so.

But what is the real dream that all of us have? I would

urge all members to keep making, from year to year, real

progress towards satisfying those basic human aspirations I

mentioned at the outset and to do so with a strong, well-

equipped and well-focused United Nations. Specifically, I

want to see a reshaped Security Council, a more tightly

focused General Assembly, better peace-keeping practice, a

Secretariat equipped to handle peace-building and partnership

arrangements, and financial arrangements built on efficiency

and punctuality. Would that not give a point to the fiftieth

anniversary celebrations that lie ahead in 1995, and would it

not make the United Nations of the next 50 years a more

effective, more dynamic and exciting place to do the world’s

business in than the conditions of the last 50 years have

allowed? The deprived of this world expect no less. The

well-off know the world is too small for the huge gap that

now exists amongst all people to remain.