Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1995

It is a great pleasure for

me to see you, Sir, presiding over this very important

session of the General Assembly. As a politician with a

long and distinguished career, you are eminently qualified

to guide us ably through the crucial coming months.

It goes without saying that I fully endorse the

intervention by Minister Solana on behalf of the European

Union. At this fiftieth anniversary session of the General

Assembly, I would like first of all to affirm the deep

attachment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the

United Nations. The United Nations is the expression of

the relatively new notion that nations and people

anywhere in the world have the same rights and are

bound by the same duties. For 50 years, this Organization

has provided the basis for building a civilized

international community and we cannot afford to be

cynical about the United Nations.

There is no alternative to the United Nations in

dealing with global challenges. It is up to us, the Member

States, to make use of the Organization and to make it

work. This anniversary should be an occasion neither for

self-congratulatory speeches nor for despondency. Rather,

it should inspire us to unite in a renewed effort to bring

the Organization into harmony with the demands of the

times.

In this age of instant communication and televised

images, respect for human rights and solidarity among

nations can no longer be applied selectively. Aggression,

war crimes and massive violations of human rights, such

as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, trigger an

immediate and massive response throughout the world. It

is impossible for people to remain indifferent to the fate

of their fellow human beings anywhere — unless, of

course, they should be denied access to these means of

communication. However, the revolutionary growth of

communications has also created a gap between people’s

demands for action and the limited ability of

Governments and organizations to satisfy these demands.

The same observation applies to national decisions

touching on the security concerns of people in countries

around the globe; and nowadays, these concerns include

environmental, ecological and all other aspects of human

security. Sovereignty has become restricted and

circumscribed because of new global interdependencies.

It is an illusion to think that in this age States can

continue to conduct their business in splendid isolation

without regard for international public opinion and

sensitivities. Again, as sovereignty becomes less

formidable a barrier and people organize themselves

freely and globally in various ways, the need for global

12

regulation becomes more pressing. For this purpose, people

look to the United Nations. But can the United Nations

meet these new demands?

The crises in Bosnia and Rwanda illustrate the types

of conflict that at present pose the biggest threat to the

international system. In many parts of the world ethnic,

racial and religious divides are resurfacing with a

vengeance. Where State structures are weak or

disintegrating, those divides may become battlegrounds for

struggles over land, water and other scarce resources.

The response of the international community to these

political and humanitarian emergencies has often been

inadequate, slow or hesitant. Lack of resolve in the early

stages of a crisis has forced Member States to scramble

later to close the gap between their acts and their words

and to restore lost credibility. There is a certain tendency to

take words for deeds and to be satisfied with words alone.

Language is a currency whose value depends on

corresponding behaviour. For the United Nations to be

credible, its language must be credible, and its language can

only be credible if it is matched by its deeds. These are

simple, basic rules, not only in banking but also in politics.

Unfortunately, it can be convenient to forget these rules for

reasons of political expediency. In such cases a higher price

must be paid at a later stage.

The war in former Yugoslavia is a tragedy for its

people, but it also exemplifies the dangers threatening the

international order. The fatal practice of “ethnic cleansing”

has been unanimously condemned by the international

community. Those warnings have not been heeded, and the

mad dream of ethnic purity is still being pursued. The

practice of “ethnic cleansing” has, moreover, set in motion

a cycle of revenge and further violence.

The end of the war may now come into sight, thanks

to forceful international intervention and a shifting balance

on the ground. The current diplomatic initiative is designed

to exploit this opportunity and finally to create conditions

for true peace. We should do everything in our power to

assist the negotiators in their mission. But for the

international community, represented by the United Nations,

the question also remains of whether it should have

intervened earlier, and with greater decisiveness.

Members of all the parties to this conflict have at

various times committed crimes and breaches of

international law. But there is a difference in the scale of

human rights violations and criminal responsibility.

The Bosnian Serb side has from the beginning

resorted to “ethnic cleansing” and acts of terror against

the civilian population as a systematic tool in its

campaign, and therefore its leaders carry prime

responsibility for initiating these practices.

The latest and perhaps largest single crime was

committed against the population of the former Bosnian

enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa. The victims were living

in areas declared safe by the Security Council. The Serb

behaviour has been condemned by the Security Council,

but the United Nations and its Member States cannot

escape sharing some of the blame for not living up to the

United Nations commitment. We, the Member States, had

convinced ourselves — and what is more, our Bosnian

protégés — that a largely symbolic United Nations

presence would be sufficient to deter aggression. It did

not. We have been proved cruelly wrong, and as a result

the populations of the enclaves paid a terrible price in

terms of human life and displacement at the hands of the

Bosnian Serbs. The Netherlands, whose small contingent

of Blue Helmets was powerless to prevent the onslaught

on Srebrenica, is deeply shocked by the massive

violations of human rights which were committed by the

Serb aggressors.

We share the Security Council’s deep concern about

the fate of the former inhabitants of Srebrenica who have

not been accounted for. There are strong indications that

thousands were murdered in cold blood. It is a disgrace

that the Bosnian Serbs have not honoured their

commitment to give immediate and full access to

representatives of international organizations to investigate

the situation of those who are missing. In the interest of

the credibility of any future peace agreement, we cannot

acquiesce in the Bosnian Serb refusal to cooperate on this

and other human rights issues. We expect the same kind

of cooperation from the Croat and Bosniac authorities

with regard to verification of reports about human rights

violations in areas under their control.

If similar calamities are to be prevented in the

future, we, the Security Council and the troop

contributors, must ensure that the operational aspects of

the Council’s resolutions have a solid foundation in

military planning and available capabilities. This includes

the political will to use those capabilities when needed.

Therefore, in the future no mandate should be given

13

before the means and the readiness for implementation are

assured.

Srebrenica and Zepa have also shown that

humanitarian action can never be a substitute for decisive

measures against a party which perpetrates aggression and

massive human rights violations. Humanitarian assistance,

important though it undoubtedly is in itself, risks being

tainted in the eye of the public if it is perceived as a

substitute for decisive action going to the root of the

problem.

In order to avoid the repetition of violent outbursts,

the seeds of future wars must be eliminated. These seeds

often lie in the ruthless exploitation of situations of

potential conflict by unscrupulous politicians and local

warlords. To deter such action, justice must be done and be

seen to be done.

The establishment of the international criminal

Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may

prove to be an important step in the right direction, and in

more than one respect. For the second time in history, after

Nuremberg and Tokyo, the international community is

holding individuals responsible for their actions during

wartime and in the initiation of war. So, hopefully, the

blame for atrocities will not be put on entire peoples, which

would call for massive revenge in the future, but on those

who are personally and directly responsible. We hope that

the creation of these Tribunals will prove to be a catalyst

for the establishment of a permanent international criminal

court.

The question of United Nations credibility in Bosnia

and Rwanda points to a broad range of issues related to

United Nations reform in the domain of peace operations,

the structure and work methods of the Security Council,

finance and the economic and social area. Let me comment

briefly on each of these.

At last year’s session of the General Assembly I noted

that a more rapid response by the United Nations might

have prevented the genocide in Rwanda. My suggestion

was that in order to deal with emergencies like these we

should consider creating a permanent brigade which could

be deployed almost instantly once the Security Council had

taken a decision. In the months thereafter this idea was

explored in a series of consultations in New York and at an

international colloquium organized in the Netherlands.

These discussions resulted in the Netherlands non-paper on

a United Nations rapid deployment brigade, which was

distributed to all Member States last April.

But the idea of a United Nations brigade should be

seen as a contribution to the wider debate on United

Nations peace operations. The most logical manner to

address the problem of rapid response would be, in my

opinion, a small, standing United Nations force which

could fill the time lag between a Security Council

decision and the deployment of national contingents.

However, the Netherlands will support and actively

contribute to any proposal that represents an intermediate

step towards the longer-term objective of a United

Nations force for rapid deployment.

Against this background, we applaud the Canadian

study on a United Nations rapid-reaction capability.

Among other things, it recommends, as our colleague Mr.

Ouellet pointed out, setting up a United Nations planning

cell, which could function as a mobile headquarters and

be part of the vanguard concept. That is, it could be the

nucleus of a force composed of national contingents under

the United Nations stand-by arrangements system. We

fully endorse this recommendation, which partly realizes

the idea I raised and in due course could lead to the

creation of a standing United Nations brigade. We shall

be in touch with other interested Member States in order

to coordinate practical suggestions with a view to possible

further political action.

The continued viability of United Nations peace

operations ultimately rests on the preservation of their

legitimacy. This implies that the Security Council should

be made more responsive to the views of the United

Nations membership at large. The transparency of the

Council’s decision-making concerning peace operations

has already undergone noticeable improvements.

Nevertheless, further adjustments are called for.

Therefore, we support the creation of a mechanism for the

discussion of all aspects of peace operations with troop

contributors.

The Assembly should address with the utmost

urgency the critical financial situation of the United

Nations. Without early agreement on financial

contributions, there can be no basis for the necessary

broad reforms. It is unacceptable that responsible Member

States should carry the burden of making up for other

States’ lack of financial discipline.

These States are in contravention of the Charter,

which makes assessed contributions, once agreed, a

binding obligation on Member States and, thus, of

international law. I strongly associate myself with the

European Union Presidency in calling upon Member

14

States to pay their contributions in full, on time and without

conditions.

The problem can be solved only if Member States

participate actively in the current negotiations aimed at

strengthening and reforming United Nations financing and

refrain from unilateral actions. The Netherlands, for its part,

will participate constructively in efforts to arrive at a

solution.

The provision of the necessary resources would also

give the United Nations the possibility of dealing more

effectively with the promotion of the economic and social

advancement of all peoples. But effective multilateral action

on socio-economic issues is not a matter only of financial

resources. It will require new thinking on the future of the

United Nations. The Secretary-General indicated the right

direction last year, in “An Agenda for Development”, in his

analysis of the five dimensions of development: peace,

economic growth, the environment, justice and democracy.

A number of initiatives, some from within the Organization

and others, such as the Carlsson report, from outside, aim

at strengthening, revitalizing and reforming the United

Nations.

The Netherlands recognizes the need for a thorough

debate and early decisions on ways to improve the

performance and accountability of the United Nations. We

welcome these initiatives, including the creation of the

High-level Open-ended Working Group by the General

Assembly. I could imagine that three years from now, in

1998, a ministerial conference could meet to agree on the

basis for the implementation of the High-level Group’s

findings.

In the field of disarmament, the Netherlands attaches

the highest priority to the conclusion next year of a

comprehensive test-ban treaty. In order to ensure that the

negotiations will reach this absolutely essential objective,

they should be given a strong political impulse.

In this context, the Netherlands deplores the recent

nuclear tests and fervently hopes that the other

nuclear-weapon States will maintain their moratoriums. A

decision not to conduct any further tests would be of great

benefit to the creation of a positive climate for the

resumption of the negotiations and their successful

completion in 1996. Therefore, the Netherlands strongly

urges the nuclear-weapon States to desist from all further

testing.

Having said all this, I should like to close on a note

of hope and appreciation for what the United Nations has

done and can continue to do in a number of very

important areas. I am thinking of the environment, the

population problem, human rights, the status of women,

democratization and social policy. In these areas, the

United Nations is providing the infrastructure for the

shaping and consolidation of a world-wide consensus and

for the practical realization of what this consensus is

about. Much of this happens through large-scale

conferences, with elaborate preparatory processes

involving the various regions of the world and a wide

spectrum of both governmental and non-governmental

actors.

The women’s Conference in Beijing is clear proof of

the crucial role of these meetings in bringing about a

global awareness of the issues at stake. These conferences

set norms and standards by which individuals and non-

governmental organizations around the world can measure

the progress made by Governments and by the United

Nations as a whole towards well-defined goals. If

properly implemented and monitored they can prove to be

decisive for the quality of life of future generations, and

even of our own, and for the credibility of our

Organization.