Portugal, 2003

In September of each year the Member States of the

United Nations politically rediscover the Organization

of which they are shareholders and beneficiaries.

The practice of business as usual should not mark

this session of the General Assembly. The Secretary-

General suggested that the heads of State and

Government come to New York to make their

contribution towards the strengthening of the United

Nations. Portugal, as a committed member of this

Organization, wishes to take part in this debate with a

clear objective: to recognise, as does Kofi Annan, that

the United Nations is an indispensable tool, and also to

recognise that we must re-examine our practices and

our working tools. Inactivity is not an option that this

Organization should contemplate.

Rethinking the United Nations means, first of all,

reaffirming and rethinking its Charter. Maintaining

peace and international security will continue to be our

main objective. But the reaffirmation of our faith in

fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of human

beings, in equality between men and women and in

equality between nations, is also part of our vision for

the United Nations, as is the determination to promote,

together, social progress and better living conditions

for our peoples.

These objectives must not be overlooked when

the Organization faces crises of confidence from time

to time. The Secretary-General is correct in his

encouragement to us to persevere. But a positive

mental attitude is not enough. It is also essential that

we do not ask more of the Organization than it can

provide at any given moment. Otherwise, great

expectations will lead to great disappointments.

Realism and pragmatism are necessary, but we

must not lose sight of the ambitious objectives that this

Organization is intended to serve. It is time for us to

look at the United Nations as a reflection of what we

are collectively, and not as a convenient scapegoat to

mask the incapacity that the Member States sometimes

still reveal when we should, but are unable, to act

together.

24

We are also bound to understand, sooner or later,

that we are facing common threats that require

common responses. At the forefront of these threats is

terrorism. In fact, a new type of terrorism has emerged:

the terrorism of mass destruction that constitutes a

crime against humanity; the terrorism that kills blindly

and indiscriminately in New York, in Bali, in

Casablanca and in Nairobi, in the name of non-values

presented as values on ideological and religious

grounds; and the terrorism that did not spare the United

Nations itself, as we so tragically witnessed in

Baghdad.

The crime which claimed the lives of Sergio

Vieira de Mello and his collaborators was an attack on

all of the values which the United Nations represents. It

was an attack against us all. If there were still lingering

doubts or illusions when some thought that terrorism

was aimed essentially at some States, they disappeared

in Baghdad.

It was not the Iraqi people who murdered Sergio

Vieira de Mello and United Nations personnel.

Terrorists are responsible for that crime. It is not the

Iraqi people who are opposed to the United Nations

presence in their country. Again, it is the terrorists. The

United Nations must not bow to terrorism.

Portugal believes that the United Nations should

have a central role in the definition of a global strategy

for fighting terrorism, largely because maintaining

international peace and security depends on the

outcome of this fight. It is a fight we must undertake

without losing our souls, that is to say, the values on

which this Organization is built. It is for this reason

that more security is necessary, but also more

democracy, more dialogue between cultures and

civilizations, more development, more and better

environmental protection measures and a drastic

reduction in poverty.

It is also vital that this fight be undertaken in the

name of, and with respect for, our law — international

law. The concept of the rule of law should have real

global resonance. This is why we defend the

improvement of the laws in force, namely through the

negotiation of a global convention on international

terrorism. But we must also bear in mind that

international law will be irrelevant without the

imposition of its norms, by force if necessary.

New challenges and new threats require

innovative responses from the United Nations. It seems

blatantly obvious that the composition and decision-

making process of the Security Council are obsolete.

But changes are also needed in this Assembly, which

each year automatically re-adopts hundreds of

resolutions instead of adopting only those that are

strictly necessary. As for the Economic and Social

Council, the most that can be said is that the external

impact of its actions is not perceptible, while the

Trusteeship Council is nothing more than a relic devoid

of any relevant objective.

In his report on the implementation of the

Millennium Declaration (A/58/323), the Secretary-

General focused on this point with particular insight.

The proposals that he put forward should guide our

thinking and joint action. But there is a particularly

worrying aspect, on which we can, and indeed must,

act without delay.

I am referring to the need for the establishment of

a real preventive culture by the United Nations in

matters of armed conflict. In this context, we agree

with the relevance that the Secretary-General attributes

to preventive diplomacy, to disarmament and non-

proliferation measures, to peace-building, to respect for

human rights, to good governance and to the

development agenda.

In the final analysis, we must be fully aware that

the usefulness of the United Nations will always be

judged as a function of its capacity to avoid and handle

conflicts. In the implementation of that mission, the

fundamental role lies with the Security Council, which

has, over the years, authorized various peacekeeping

operations. The overall result has been positive.

Portugal has contributed significantly to those

operations and remains available to continue to

collaborate with the United Nations.

But conditions on the ground are not always

clear-cut, and it is not always possible to separate what

is and what is not a conflict, and what would justify or

not an intervention by the Security Council. There is an

immense grey area that can be perilous in pre-conflict

and post-conflict situations.

We must also create the tools for dealing with

countries and situations that do not need support in

terms of security, namely through a peacekeeping

operation. The intervention of the United Nations at the

critical phase of a conflict, followed by a premature

withdrawal, may well end in failure, which will

25

essentially lead to the waste of the investment made by

the international community up to that point.

This assessment recommends, for example, that

the United Nations continue to monitor closely the

situation in East Timor. It is a country whose

democratic institutions are still in the consolidation

phase. Without a tradition of self-government, it has

made uncommonly rapid progress in several areas but

is still in need of our help and attention. If we truly

want East Timor to be a real success story for the

United Nations, it is important to give the people of

East Timor time to consolidate their institutions.

However, in other cases in which a peace

operation is not yet justified and where State

institutions are fragile, where there is an enormous lack

of basic services and development has not taken off, it

is advisable to have a strong United Nations presence,

coordinated on the ground by the Secretary-General.

I would also like to take this opportunity to

mention Guinea-Bissau, which is frequently

overlooked and which once again requires our

attention. Having avoided falling into a destructive

spiral as has happened to so many countries in the

region, that country is still fighting to recover. It must

be helped, not ignored. They are a people who can and

should be helped by the international community —

and indeed deserve to be. For that reason, we support

the efforts of the Secretary-General on behalf of

democracy and development and applaud the original

contribution of the Economic and Social Council.

Under the present conditions, the Security

Council does not take into account all the factors

involved in prevention: security, nation building and

development. Each one follows a more or less

independent path.

There is one other factor to add: the Council is

fully absorbed with the management of the most

pressing matters on the international agenda and at

times demonstrates a notorious lack of attention to

some countries in pre- or post-conflict situations.

We believe there is a solid case for advocating the

creation of a new institutional mechanism: a new

commission with the mandate to routinely monitor

cases of conflict-prevention and the creation of

conditions for peace and development. In conjunction

with the Security Council and the Economic and Social

Council, which would both preserve their respective

areas of competence, this commission could identify

and deal with the most pressing needs. For each of the

countries in situations of risk, it would draw up

integrated strategies allying the objectives of security

and strengthening institutions and economic and social

development. While other decisions of great importance

are being prepared, we can — and should — begin here

to deal with pre- and post-conflict situations.

It is not enough for the United Nations to affirm

its relevance. It is absolutely indispensable that the

Organization is seen as relevant by the Member States

and that States act accordingly. The credibility of the

Organization must not be questioned. Otherwise its

functioning and effectiveness may be severely

compromised.

Iraq is undoubtedly the case that requires of us

all, in particular the members of the Security Council,

that we carefully evaluate the Organization’s capacity

for action. A collective turn of the page is necessary,

since there is no valid alternative to a policy that

enables the Iraqi people to freely define their system of

Government and political leadership and that maintains

the country’s political and territorial integrity. To build

a democratic society on the ruins of one of the most

violent dictatorships of the past century is a challenge

the international community must not shrink. It is a

task that demands much realism with respect to the

difficulties to be confronted.

For that very reason, Portugal has always been in

favour of the progressive involvement of the United

Nations in Iraq’s stabilization process, with a

corresponding gradual transfer of power to Iraqi

representatives. We also encourage the Security

Council to come to a rapid understanding on this

matter. For our part, we are already taking concrete

steps, including in the security field, to support all

those that are already locally assisting the Iraqi people

to live in freedom.

A larger commitment by the international

community is indispensable for resuming the Middle

East peace process. The road map cannot be shelved. It

is up to us to demand a proactive attitude from all

interested parties. Also, we should not be indifferent to

the Palestinian people’s legitimate desire for liberty

and self-determination. Israel and Palestine will have to

coexist in peace and in security, within recognized

borders. But here again, terrorism, which only benefits

26

the enemies of peace, must be condemned without

ambiguity.

Great challenges generate great opportunities. It

is up to us, the Members of the United Nations, to

create the conditions that will allow this Organization

to function in accordance with its potential and the

ideas that were an integral part of its creation. Those

ideas remain valid, and Portugal stands ready to give

its contribution.