France, 2001

At the

outset, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the

President on his election, which is a sign of the esteem

in which he and his country are held.

Coming after his re-election to a second term ─

which is a sign of the general confidence he has

earned ─ the Nobel Peace Prize that has been awarded

to the Secretary-General is a well-deserved tribute to

his work and, through him, to the United Nations

Organization as a whole, thereby inspiring greater hope

than ever before.

On this my third visit to New York since the

tragedy of 11 September, I also want to express once

again my profound emotion and pay homage to the

people of New York, who are being so severely tested,

and to their courageous mayor, who is now finishing

his term.

The unprecedented magnitude and gravity of the

terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11

September warrant our unfailing solidarity and an

exceptional response. In its resolution 1368 (2001),

which was adopted unanimously, the Security Council

rightly qualified those acts as attacks and, hence, as

legitimately meriting a defensive response under

Article 51 of the Charter. The United States is thus

entirely within its legal and political rights in carrying

out its targeted military response against the terrorist

organizations responsible for those acts. The military

action under way was therefore inevitable, and must be

pursued until all its objectives have been achieved.

Given the preliminary results achieved yesterday, I

hope that those objectives will be met as soon as

possible. The leaders of these terrorist networks and

those who support them must be decisively prevented

from committing further harm.

But that military action should, as a matter of

course, form part of an overarching strategy that

includes immediate, broad-scale humanitarian action

that is better adapted to the needs of people in distress.

France has put forward several proposals in this regard

and supports the current initiatives for better

coordination. That overarching strategy should also

include a political solution — something that has now

become urgent — and strive to ensure that the demise

of the Taliban regime does not lead to factional

infighting and chaos; and it must once again make the

Afghan people masters of their own future. That is the

aim of the action plan for Afghanistan that France

proposed back on 1 October, and of the other

contributions it has made with the same goals in mind.

We await Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi’s proposals with

interest; they should set forth broad outlines of action

for the United Nations. On these bases, the Security

Council should be able to adopt a framework resolution

within a few days, endorsing Mr. Brahimi’s proposals

and spelling out the modalities of United Nations

support for the establishment of an Afghan

26

Government representative of the various constituents

of the population. There is no question of imposing on

Afghanistan some ready-made solution concocted by

outsiders. I call on all the constituents of the Afghan

nation and all neighbouring countries to heed the

general interest of Afghanistan and its people. This is

compatible with respect for the legitimate interests of

the various parties concerned and it is the only way to

turn our backs on the past.

Beyond immediate military, diplomatic and

humanitarian action, our common fight against

terrorism needs to be pursued in all its forms, including

police, judicial and others. The United Nations will

have a crucial role to play in this difficult struggle,

laying down universal obligations for each State and

the framework for our action. A series of conventions

has already been concluded, particularly the

International Convention for the Suppression of the

Financing of Terrorism, which I proposed in this very

place in 1999. We must speed up the signature and

ratification of those conventions. The General

Assembly must quickly conclude the negotiations on

the comprehensive convention on international

terrorism. For its part, the Security Council should

oversee the coordinated implementation by States of its

resolution 1373 (2001).

Action against terrorism also needs to be carried

out through other organizations, in conjunction with

the United Nations and consistent with its policies. For

its part, the European Union (EU) has just taken

unprecedented steps to strengthen police and judicial

cooperation among its member States, including the

creation of a European arrest warrant. An ambitious

action plan has been agreed. The 29 members of the

Financial Action Task Force (FATF) have decided to

extend the fight against money-laundering to the fight

against the financing of terrorism. Beyond that, I

propose the creation of a dialogue forum to move us in

this direction. Several other organizations, too, will

have a role to play, so that at the end of the day every

country will be making a contribution.

Leaving aside the hoped-for short-term results,

the obstacles notwithstanding, we will not achieve

lasting victory against all forms of terrorism unless we

succeed in depriving terrorists of their breeding ground

and eliminating the pretexts from which they

fallaciously draw their justification, and unless we

eradicate them in the true sense of the term. That

implies nothing short of changing our world. And let

no one claim that this would be tantamount to

justifying the terrorists. For neither my country, nor

Europe, nor the United Nations — in other words, none

of us — waited for 11 September to discover, condemn

and seek to remedy the ills of the world. Yet how many

good intentions have come to naught? How many

resolutions have gone unimplemented? How many

announcements have failed to materialize, which now

feed a sense of bitterness and incomprehension? It is

pointless to condemn or deny the theory of a clash of

civilizations. Rather, we must fight against such a risk,

which is by no means wholly imaginary, and against

those who would make it a reality.

This should be one more pressing reason for us

all to find a solution to regional crises, particularly in

the Middle East. Since 1982, France has called for the

creation of a Palestinian State. Naturally, it would have

to be viable, democratic and peaceful, and it should

give credible undertakings as regards Israel’s security.

Guarantees will be needed, yet the Palestinian State is

not the problem; it is the solution for reasons based on

rights, humanity and security. Such is the EU’s

common stance today. This morning, before the

Assembly, President Bush himself has made this his

objective. It is the path of reason — the only path that

can halt the murderous spiral of conflict between the

two peoples.

Admittedly, responsibility for a lasting peace

agreement lies first and foremost with the protagonists.

Unless they make the move, no one else will be able to

overcome their fears and resentment and put an end to

the suffering of these two peoples. Yet, the increasing

threat that this conflict poses to international peace and

security requires that those who have the will and the

means join forces in a push for peace, given that the

main players are evidently unable to do so unaided.

The urgency of the situation in the Near East

obviously should not make us forget Iraq. Regional

security still needs to be secured by restoring an

international monitoring capability and by alleviating

the suffering of the Iraqi people through the lifting of

the embargo on civilian goods. I hope the discussions

now in progress in the Security Council will finally

bring this about.

Nor should we forget the Caucasus, where ancient

quarrels live on and where new ones are rising to the

fore. Yet, here again there is no other way than to seek

negotiated political solutions.

27

In the Balkans, we realized that international

involvement must be sustainable. Thanks to it, and

thanks to new leaders, noteworthy progress has been

achieved towards democracy, reconciliation and

regional cooperation over the last two years. We must

make sure these positive changes are not challenged by

outmoded patterns of behaviour. We must maintain and

pursue the Europeanization of the Balkans.

Turning to the Great Lakes region, we know that

the lasting resolution of the conflict, which involves

more than eight countries, will be a negotiated solution

that will ensure the restoration of the sovereignty of the

Democratic Republic of the Congo and include as well

safeguard clauses to protect the security of each of the

States. The Lusaka Agreement and the relevant

Security Council resolutions provide the framework for

ending this crisis, but they should be applied as quickly

as possible. To halt the illegal use of the resources of

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which often

occurs in association with forced child labour, should

be an immediate priority.

In all the cases I have just referred to briefly —

and there are others — the problem we have to resolve

is the coexistence of peoples who are at once close and

antagonistic, deeply affected and divided by history

and separated by fear and the spirit of revenge. We will

achieve this only through perseverance and a clear

understanding of each particular situation, guided by

the principles of the United Nations.

Even if we managed to resolve all these regional

crises and others as well, our task would still not be

over because, at the global level, the gulf between

intentions for the world as stated at international

meetings and actual realities is becoming intolerable

for many peoples. We must redouble our efforts to

create humane globalization. We saw this in Seattle, we

saw it in Genoa, and even more so in Durban. We can

see it in the reactions to the Afghan crisis and to many

other issues. Despite the United Nations and our good

resolutions, there is still no real universal consensus.

What we call “the international community” has yet to

be built. Is this a reason to throw in the towel? To the

contrary – absolutely not. France has long been

determined to add its stone to this edifice. We have

already put forward numerous proposals to that end and

will continue to do so, with increased conviction.

Need I recall our well-known major objectives for

the world?

First, we must achieve a fairer distribution of

wealth; 3 billion people currently live on less than 2

dollars per day, and the global income gap between the

richest and the poorest has doubled over the last 40

years.

Second, we must end impunity.

Third, we must guarantee sustainable

development everywhere — “sustainable”, that little

word that makes all the difference, or which should

make all the difference. The World Summit in

Johannesburg in September 2002 will provide an

opportunity to affirm a vision and a benchmark of

development based on three intimately linked pillars:

economic, social and environmental.

Fourth, we must help refugees and fully respect

the right of asylum.

Fifth, we must manage population movements in

a humanitarian manner.

Sixth, we must draft international standards in a

democratic way to ensure that they are entirely

legitimate and that everyone will consequently be

bound to comply with them.

Seventh, we must no longer tolerate situations of

human distress. State sovereignty, which remains an

essential feature of the international system, cannot, in

extreme emergencies, be regarded as an absolute

principle serving as a pretext for inaction. The Security

Council must be able to fully assume its

responsibilities in cases of gross human rights

violations, for these also pose threats to international

peace and security.

Eighth, we must aim at promoting balanced and

negotiated disarmament, which strengthens security

and strategic stability.

Ninth, we must strive to allow all languages,

cultures and civilizations to exist while maintaining a

dialogue with one another.

Tenth, we must seek to improve the state of

health worldwide, which for one thing means devoting

more resources to combating HIV/AIDS. I would hope

that the new Global AIDS and Health Fund will be

made operational by the beginning of 2002.

But we are undoubtedly now more aware than in

recent years that the attainment of these objectives,

which are both indispensable, and very ambitious, calls

28

different rules and different mechanisms, starting with

the reform and enlargement of the Security Council,

which we have waited for all too long; with respect for

the role of the General Assembly; with the ratification

of the major multilateral instruments — I am thinking

of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and

the Kyoto Protocol, among others; with a more

appropriate and less indiscriminate use of sanctions

when they are needed; with a clarification of the

respective and legitimate roles of Governments and

civil society; with an agreement on the modalities of

interference to deal with large-scale and extreme

emergency situations; with a regulation and

development round at the World Trade Organization

(WTO), which is starting today in Doha; with closer

cooperation and greater consistency between the WTO

and the International Labour Organization; with the

creation of a world environmental organization; and

with reform of the international financial institutions. I

shall stop this list here. I could go on, for there is so

much that remains to be done.

All of us, as Members of the United Nations, are

faced with this challenge. But I do not hesitate to say

here that the rich countries — in other words, the West

and a handful of other countries from the Organization

for Economic Cooperation and Development, where

some 1.135 billion men and women live, have even

more responsibility than others. Now that the illusions

of the last 10 years have been dispelled, the choice

before us is harsh, but clear: either a world so unjust

that we have conflict with no foreseeable end, or, on

the contrary, an international community of the United

Nations, at last worthy of the name, to solve together

humanity’s common problems and ensure its future.

But building this community, instead of just talking

about it or yearning for it, will mean for some of us

giving up privileges, sharing wealth and power in new

ways, and rewriting certain rules hitherto held to be

inviolable. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist

Joseph Stiglitz has written, free trade was designed by

Western countries for the Western countries. This is

debatable, of course, but none of this will happen

without sacrifices, above all on the part of the rich and

powerful countries.

At this very moment, a reshuffling of diplomatic

cards on a grand scale is under way between the United

States, Russia, China, Europe, the Arab or Muslim

world, the other coalition partners, the rest of the world

and the United Nations. I hope — I truly hope — that

this will help to bring about a vital awakening and that

my country, Europe and the United Nations will follow

new avenues, in deeds and not just words, and that all

of us, together, will successfully extend the needed

coalition against terrorism to turn it into a coalition for

an equitable world, and that this will lay the

groundwork for a renewal of the international system.