New Zealand, 2012

I bring greetings

from the South Pacific. For the past year, New Zealand

has had the privilege of chairing the Pacific Islands

Forum, a regional body that represents some of the

smallest and most vulnerable States on this planet. For

us that has been an important responsibility.

Because we are a small country with modest

resources, we choose to focus much of our attention

on our own region. Over 60 per cent of our official

development assistance is spent in our own

neighbourhood. Serving as Chair of the Pacific Islands

Forum has caused us to reflect on the role of regional

organizations, and also on the extent to which we all

depend on the United Nations for solutions to challenges

that are truly global in character. I say with some

confidence that we have been making good progress

in dealing with those challenges that are capable of

regional solutions.

But I must also say that we need and expect more

from this institution. The Pacific Islands Forum has

16 members, of which 16 are small island States. I was

pleased this week to attend the first meeting between

the Secretary-General and Pacific Islands Forum

leaders, which I hope will mark a new era of enhanced

high-level engagement between this Organization and

our region and a greater understanding of our needs.

The Pacific has had its share of stability and

security challenges in recent times. As a region, we

have done reasonably well in dealing with them. Most recently it has been in Solomon Islands that a regional

initiative has been required. The Regional Assistance

Mission to the Solomon Islands has involved a truly

regional approach, with the participation of police

and other personnel from every member of the Pacific

Islands Forum. I am pleased to report that the security

element of that initiative has been significantly scaled

down and will soon be fully withdrawn. But there is

also more that this Organization, particularly the

Security Council, can do to acknowledge and support

regional leadership on peace and security matters in the

Pacific and elsewhere.

Concerns about democracy, the rule of law and

human rights are not mere abstract considerations within

the Pacific. Those principles have been challenged in a

number of States, most notably, in recent years, in Fiji.

In that respect, I am pleased to report that progress is

being made towards the holding of elections in 2014,

and that support has been forthcoming to ensure that

such elections are free and fair.

Stability and security issues are not the only

priorities for our regional body. In our year as Forum

Chair, New Zealand chose to focus on a number of

development priorities, two of which I wish to mention

in my remarks today.

For many of the poorer States within our region,

their fisheries resource is the major economic asset they

hold. Yet due to illegal fishing practices, unreported

catch and inadequate management practices, those

countries have received far too small a return on that

resource. Because of the highly migratory character

of the tuna resource, this is truly a matter requiring

regional management. Solid progress is being made

in such areas as improved surveillance, the training

of monitors and improved management practices, both

to protect the last really healthy fishery on the planet

and to ensure that its owners receive a fair share of the

resource they own.

One of the highest priorities within our region

is the need for practical initiatives in the area of

renewable energy. Ours is a region heavily dependent

upon fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. The

cost of expensive imported diesel in most small Pacific

economies is absolutely crippling. The climate change

impact is obvious.

After a decade of climate change conferences and

hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called climate

change initiatives, one might be forgiven for imagining that the Pacific, overendowed as it is with good sunlight,

would by now be positively festooned with solar power

plants. Sadly, I must report that that is not in fact the

case. Indeed, one of the most striking features of our

region has been the complete lack of progress in putting

lofty climate change rhetoric into any form of renewable

energy practice.

In our year in the Chair of the regional body we

have set out to correct that serious shortcoming. A

small but important illustration lies in our work in

the tiny Tokelau Islands. Until now, Tokelau has been

100 per cent dependent on fossil fuels for the generation

of electricity. By the end 2012, Tokelau will be over

90 per cent resourced with renewable solar electricity.

Good progress has also been made in Tonga, where

I recently participated in the opening of a solar power

plant supplying around 20 per cent of the electricity

requirements of the main island, Tongatapu. And we

are working with the Cook Islands Government, too,

to assist in meeting their bold aspiration to 50 per cent

renewable electricity by 2015, mostly through solar

initiatives.

These New Zealand-funded programmes are

an important part of our overall commitment to our

region. Our parting legacy from our year as Chair

of the regional body is a renewable-energy pledging

conference to be held early next year, with the objective

of matching donors, suppliers of concessional and

commercial finance, and others with the renewable

energy plans of our Pacific neighbours. Here I should

acknowledge the European Union’s commitment in

co-leading this initiative, as well as the support of the

World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the

Governments of Australia, the United States and other

generous supporters.

While there is much that can be achieved by

regional action, we must acknowledge that sometimes

regional solutions are just not enough. That goes right

to the very heart of the reason for the existence of this

Organization. My point is most vividly illustrated

today in relation to Syria. It would be difficult for

me to overstate the level of frustration of the people

I represent with the complete inability of the Security

Council to act in relation to Syria. And it would be

even more difficult to overstate the extent to which the

Security Council is at risk of losing its credibility in the

eyes of reasonable and fair-minded people through its

inability to act. People in my country ask a very simple question:

If 25,000 deaths, countless thousands injured and

many more displaced and homeless are not enough to

get the Security Council to act, then what does it take?

Just what does it take? I welcome the leadership that

the Arab League and Arab States have shown on this

issue, and we have seen similar leadership from them

on other difficult issues in their region. And I welcome

the fact that the General Assembly has been looking

for opportunities to be more engaged. In the absence of

leadership from the Security Council, 1 suggest that the

Assembly must find ways to play a more activist role.

But from all of this, the case for Security Council

reform has become utterly compelling. Indeed,

increasingly, the future credibility of the United

Nations may depend on it. If we are to make progress

in this area we will need to see Members move past the

extravagant attempts to maximize individual positions

and try to find some meaningful, practical reforms that

actually hold the prospect of widespread support.

I represent a small nation of practical, constructive

people. And it is because we seek practical,

constructive reform that our Government supports the

so-called intermediate solution: the creation of a new

category of seat for the group of larger countries that

feel underrepresented in comparison with the five

permanent members of the Security Council (P-5), but

seats that they would have to win in open elections

so as to make them fully accountable to the broader

membership.

I do not intend in these remarks to discuss any other

specific proposals we would like to see considered, with

one exception. There are now compelling reasons for us

to ask the P-5 to voluntarily accept restrictions on the

use of the veto. To go further and to seek its abolition is

pointless; it simply will not happen. But to ask the P-5

to acknowledge and respect the genuine concerns of the

wider membership by voluntarily accepting a curb on

the exercise of the veto is an entirely reasonable and

achievable objective.

My country was one of those that led the opposition

to the veto when the Organization was being established;

indeed, it was the only Charter issue that was forced to a

vote. The permanent members argued at that stage that

the veto was necessary in order to protect their vital

national interests. Yet today we routinely see the veto

exercised in circumstances that have little to do with

national interests. My request to the five permanent members is simply that they stick with what they said

to us back in 1945. And my challenge to them today

is to consider a process by which they collectively and

voluntarily agree to confine their use of the veto to

those issues that clearly and directly affect their vital

national interests; and also that they voluntarily agree

not to use their veto in situations that involve mass

atrocities.

While on the topic of the Security Council, I

would like to take the opportunity to urge the Council

and the relevant organs of the General Assembly to

respond positively to the requests from the Economic

Community of West African States for support in

dealing with the conflict in Mali and the Sahel. Too

often we have seen the Council fail to respond in

a timely way to requests for help — in Rwanda, in

Guinea, in Darfur and in Somalia. Too often it has been

a case of too little, too late. In all of these cases we have

seen good leadership from within the African Union,

and that leadership deserves a timely and constructive

response from New York.

Many of those here will be aware that New Zealand

is an energetic candidate for election to the Security

Council for the term from 2015-2016. I can assure the

Assembly that it will hear more from us on these topics

over the next two years. We are a small country with

a big voice and an approach that is fair-minded and

constructive.

In the past few days. the Assembly has heard from

both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas.

We are now on notice that the issue of Palestinian status

in the United Nations will come before the Assembly

during this session. We look forward to seeing the text

of a draft resolution and to engaging in the consultations

that have been signaled to us. I said earlier that New

Zealanders are practical and constructive. They are also

fair-minded people; they expect to see their Government

bring all of those attributes to the consideration of such

a resolution, and that we will surely do. Having said

that, let me also be clear that we see such a resolution

as a very poor substitute for the direct discussions that

should occur between two leaders who live half an hour

down the road from each other.

In his address to the Assembly earlier in the week

(see A/67/PV.12), Prime Minister Netanyahu set out

clearly the grave implications for the Middle East, and

for the global community more generally, of a nuclear

breakout in the region. Like other Member States, New Zealand believes Iran must be told to step back from

a course that risks further dangerous escalation of the

situation. We hope the international community will

stand firm in sending that sort of message. In return,

however, I suggest that it is fair for the international

community to make a request of Prime Minister

Netanyahu. And that is to put the settlements on hold, at

the very least while negotiations proceed, and to engage

in the direct talks with his Palestinian counterpart that

represent the only basis for a durable solution to this

issue, and an essential step in removing the seeds of

wider conflict within the region.

I would like to remind the Assembly that these are

very difficult times for Governments around the world.

Budget economies have affected foreign ministries,

my own included. It is only fair that we should in

turn ask this large institution to find economies and

improve working methods in order to deliver better

value for our taxpayers. Smaller countries, like New

Zealand, depend more than most on good multilateral

institutions. We need a United Nations that is modern,

efficient and able to meet changing needs. We all need

a Security Council that is more responsive to the needs

of the wider membership and more effective in dealing

with the significant challenges that we all confront

today.