Poland, 2005

Let me begin by

congratulating President Jan Eliasson on his election.

Allow me to assure him of Poland’s readiness to

support him in his efforts during this session. I would

also like to join the European Union presidency — to

whose statement we fully adhere — in expressing my

words of gratitude to His Excellency Mr. Jean Ping for

his leadership during the preparations for the sixtieth

anniversary summit.

This year in Poland we are commemorating the

twentieth anniversary of the Solidarity movement. In

the history of Europe since the Second World War,

there have been few events that can be celebrated with

a similar sense of pride and satisfaction. The history of

Solidarity — and in particular its rebirth in 1989 —

opened the way to profound historic changes in Europe

and the entire world, including the fall of the Berlin

Wall and the collapse of the Communist bloc. I hope

and believe that Solidarity’s message still remains an

inspiration not only for Poland, but also for the entire

world — wherever there are people who uphold or

aspire to freedom and solidarity. In that spirit, I would

like to repeat our call to celebrate 31 August as a world

day of freedom and solidarity. In our opinion, global

solidarity should be the central value in and the key

tool for achieving a new sense of community and

realizing our common interests.

Poland’s dedication to the concept of solidarity

also draws strength from the fact that Poland itself

benefited from foreign aid and support. Today, we are

undergoing an important transition in our status: from

aid recipient to donor. We hope that Poland’s active

cooperation for development will serve as a catalyst for

further change and help lay the foundation for

democracy, sustainable development, human rights and

the rule of law.

For us, however, the concept of responsible

solidarity is not solely limited to humanitarian

endeavours; it means more than assisting the poor and

underdeveloped. Solidarity is an operational principle,

which generates cooperative attitudes among countries

in need, including those plagued by terrorism, natural

and manmade disasters, weak State structures and other

calamities. Solidarity means rescue rather than relief,

remedy rather than alleviation. It should be driven by

need — not by right — and cut across dividing lines. It

is solidarity that can help to bridge religious and

ideological divides and overcome the difficult legacy

of the past. Indeed, if we want to build a world without

divisions we must first suppress all disputes that feed

on past grievances. We have to find a way to reconcile

divergent points of view without sacrificing our

principles.

The recently concluded High-level Plenary

Meeting was a product of enormous efforts to forge a

new global consensus on development, security, human

rights and United Nations institutional reform. The

agenda of the summit was long and ambitious. The

preparatory process, as well as the summit itself,

offered many insights, ideas and useful

recommendations that merit further serious

consideration. However, despite the great

determination and expectations, we failed to achieve

unity in confronting all of the world’s most menacing

problems.

The United Nations is a ponderous institution and

does not embrace change easily. Thus, we should not

expect that each and every summit will provide us with

revolutionary changes. Real breakthroughs are usually

the result of a lengthy process. Consequently, our

outcome document should be regarded not as the end

of reform, but as a guide for the further practical steps

that need to be taken. In that context, I call on

Members to devise a plan to implement our summit

decisions and to submit it to the General Assembly for

adoption. This time, we must break the vicious circle

of inaction and ensure a proper follow-up to the

summit. Finding workable forms and mechanisms for

cooperation has never proved easy and will remain a

serious challenge for the months ahead.

The United Nations operates in a constantly

changing international environment. We have already

identified major new threats, risks and challenges: the

fanaticism of international terrorism, the proliferation

of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime,

States in crisis and failed States. Although we claim to

know their nature, we will never be quite able to

predict how, where and when those threats will

manifest themselves. At the same time, such threats

cannot overshadow the importance of addressing their

root causes, such as development gaps, poverty, social

exclusion, natural disasters, discrimination and

intolerance, among others.

19

We are passing through a transitional stage with

all its strains and stresses. International institutions and

mechanisms — designed to serve the old international

system — must face the challenge of reform and

accommodation. The United Nations is not an

exception. As a consequence, we have had to find ways

and means to respond to the swiftly changing nature of

security threats and risks. Thus, the challenge remains

the same as for all of us: how do we manage that

change?

In this era of globalization and rapid change, no

country alone can fully ensure its own security. State

security is more than ever before dependent on external

determinants. What we need is an innovative and

imaginative approach to security, both in the realm of

strategy and in its constituent processes. Moreover, we

have to develop a new security paradigm according to

which the security of individuals is as important as the

security of States.

Likewise, we need a new concept of sovereignty

that attaches greater importance to protecting the rights

of people than to the prerogatives of State power. We

must place the human being at the centre of the

activities of international institutions.

It is true that the first duty of a Government

should be to protect those living within its jurisdiction

from genocide, mass killing and human rights

violations. However, in certain instances, the

responsibility of the international community to take

action must be ensured.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

is a longstanding problem that has afflicted the

international community for many years. However, in

the light of the particularly threatening nexus of

terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, it has taken

on a new dimension. No State is immune to it or is

protected from its consequences. At the same time,

existing systems of national control and international

non-proliferation agreements are not completely

effective and are undermined by loopholes and lacunae

which enable States and individuals to bypass the

regime. It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that

the United Nations summit failed to reach an outcome

on non-proliferation and disarmament.

To address that challenge adequately, we have to

strengthen the three pillars of the nuclear-arms-control

regime: non-proliferation, disarmament and the

peaceful use of nuclear energy. We should, however,

ensure that it works in a harmonious and self-

sustaining way.

Another issue is that of enforcement. Legal norms

that are not effectively enforced obviously do not serve

their purpose. We have to seek ways and means to

ensure effective verification and to enforce respect for

existing non-proliferation and disarmament obligations.

We cannot count solely on persuasion and containment.

More fundamentally, we need a comprehensive

review of the existing negotiating machinery. With that

in mind, two methods of action are possible. One

would be to establish a group of experts; the other —

perhaps a better solution — would be to request that a

respected international independent research centre —

such as, for example, the Stockholm International

Peace Research Institute — prepare a report containing

recommendations on how to make existing United

Nations institutions and mechanisms more effective,

operational and efficient.

Our concerted efforts to strengthen the United

Nations will be doomed to failure if we continue to

believe that only security issues matter. They certainly

do matter, but security is a much broader concept. It

does not involve only the absence of hard or soft

threats. It is, above all, about the absence of threats to

fundamental human values. Likewise, the eradication

of poverty is essential not only to peace and

development, but, first and foremost, to the

preservation of human rights and standards. Ensuring

social justice and reducing inequalities do not involve

only the allocation of scarce resources to guarantee

security; they also presuppose both human freedom and

human dignity.

In that context, Poland welcomes the proposed

changes to the United Nations human rights machinery,

especially the decision to establish a Human Rights

Council. We believe that such an organ would enable

us to promote respect for human rights in a more

efficient and responsible way.

We should also promote democracy through the

United Nations in order to protect human rights and

expand democratic freedoms. No one can claim that

democracies are free of contradictions and injustices.

But it is democracies that best serve to defend the

values we want to protect and promote.

In that spirit, on behalf of the citizens of Poland, I

would like to reiterate our sincere and strong support

20

for the Democracy Fund, established to assist countries

in their transition to democracy. I truly believe that this

new mechanism will help to address differences among

and within societies in a spirit of true respect and

understanding.

Poland’s commitment to the community of shared

values does not mean that we disregard the institutional

and technical aspects of reform. Institutional

adaptation should be characterized by openness,

transparency and effectiveness. These are precisely the

principles that have guided us in the process of

analysing Security Council reform and establishing the

Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights

Council.

Reform of the Security Council is proving to be

an enormously complex and divisive issue. Although

necessary, it should not be conducted at the cost of

compromising the Council’s capacity to meet its

Charter responsibilities. The Republic of Poland

believes that the effectiveness and efficiency of the

Security Council rests on the assumption that

membership not only grants additional privileges but

also increases responsibilities.

Furthermore, Poland fully recognizes the

importance of the ongoing process carried out by the

Secretary-General, which is aimed at enhancing

effective management of the Organization. We strongly

encourage continuing such efforts to strengthen United

Nations accountability and its oversight mechanisms as

well as to promote the efficient use of its human

resources. System-wide coherence, particularly

regarding operational capabilities and humanitarian

assistance, should be high on the reform agenda. We

hope that such an approach will enhance the

Organization’s capacity to carry out its new tasks and

meet its new challenges, thus enhancing the authority

of the United Nations and its role in the international

system.

Poland’s commitments in the framework of the

United Nations are not made based on tactical

considerations. We are not calculating what we can

gain from this or that choice. We do not expect to make

political profits or economic gains. But we share a

sense of solidarity and responsibility with respect not

only to our own country but also to the entire

international community.

A system based on values and principles may not

be perfect, but it is likely to be more peaceful and, in

the long run, more conducive and responsive to the

needs of peoples. In that spirit, I hope that this

anniversary session will provide a strong impetus to

rebuild the community of shared values and enable us

to replace the global psychology of competition with a

spirit of cooperation.