Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2003

The deaths

of Sergio Vieira de Mello and his colleagues leave a

terrible void. The loss of so many dedicated servants of

the United Nations at its headquarters in Baghdad fills

us with shock, grief and concern. This atrocity and the

other murderous attacks we have seen in the past two

years are chilling evidence that terrorists are ruthlessly

targeting the civilized world. Terrorism is a direct

threat to us all, to humanity as a whole.

Weapons of mass destruction are the other direct

threat, an even worse threat if such weapons were to

fall into the hands of terrorists.

In addition to these direct threats to peace and

security, we are faced with, in the words of Secretary-

General Kofi Annan, “soft threats”: poverty and hunger,

environmental degradation and diseases of mass

destruction like HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

What all these threats have in common is that

they do not stop at national borders. Their often lethal

consequences affect groups of countries, whole

continents or even the entire planet. The only way to

tackle them is by collective action. Enforcement and

implementation are the key.

But do we have the capacity to take such action?

Is the existing multilateral system with its institutions

and rules capable of responding to the hard threats and

soft threats we are facing? I doubt it. Take the growing

danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Can we

allow a few countries to reject the rules agreed to by

187 other countries? Can we run the risk of countries

turning into suppliers of nuclear arms to terrorist

organizations? No, we cannot. And if today’s rules

cannot avert States putting humanity at risk, we must

tighten those rules and we must be ready to collectively

enforce them.

I therefore welcome President Bush’s proposal

for a binding Security Council resolution, tightening up

the non-proliferation rules. I suggest that we build on

existing export control regimes and make them

universal and legally binding. This approach would be

in line with the successful example of Security Council

resolution 1373 (2001), containing binding obligations

for States to take action against terrorism. Other

elements in a more forceful multilateral system are

15

greater attention to conflict prevention, better use of

sanctions or “smart sanctions”, an upgrading of the

International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspections

regime and, as suggested by President Chirac, a

permanent instrument for inspections at the disposal of

the Security Council.

More robust multilateral action is also needed in

our dealings with failed States. I am encouraged by the

increased willingness of the international community to

take more determined action. Liberia is a test case. The

Brahimi report has shown us the right direction.

Peacekeeping operations can only be effective if they

are based on a strong mandate, fully implemented on

the ground and fully backed by the key players in the

Security Council. The five permanent members bear a

special responsibility for global peace and security

Noblesse oblige.

The United Nations is now also at the centre of

the debate about Iraq. Let us put our past differences

on Iraq behind us. It is crucial now that the

international community support the Iraqi people in

their reconstruction efforts. I trust that the Security

Council will reach agreement, as soon as possible, on

what we all want, in other words, stabilization, security

and transfer of sovereignty to a legitimate Iraqi

government. This will also allow the United Nations

and the other multilateral institutions to make their

indispensable contributions to a better future for the

Iraqi people.

A stronger United Nations is also needed for the

effective promotion and protection of human rights. I

regret that we do not live up to the expectations of the

oppressed. The great dependence of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights on voluntary

contributions is a major concern. His office should

instead receive a larger allocation from the regular

United Nations budget. The promotion and protection

of human rights is United Nations core business.

Speaking of human rights, there is no doubt that

terrorism itself ranks as one of the most serious threats

to democracy and the enjoyment of human rights.

Terrorists seek to destroy democracy, freedom and

tolerance. If we sacrifice those universal values in the

struggle against terrorists, we play into their hands.

If I may speak for a moment as Chairman-in-

Office of the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), I can assure you that

our experience shows that policies aimed at promoting

human rights, the rule of law and good governance can

reinforce each other as parts of a more comprehensive

security strategy. The International Criminal Court is

another example of how to ensure that international

norms are upheld in cases where national Governments

fail to do so.

On the trafficking of human beings, women and

children in particular, I share the concerns expressed by

President Bush. He was right to draw a comparison

with slavery. For the OSCE, the threat posed by the

international trafficking of drugs, of small arms and of

women and children is a top priority. We have already

taken concrete action, adopting the OSCE Action Plan

to combat trafficking in human beings as an instrument

for protecting our people. This Action Plan could serve

as a model for worldwide action.

Yet another reason why we need a robust

multilateral system is that we must break the cycles of

poverty and violence we witness in many parts of

Africa. This implies restoring stability and order as a

precondition for reconstruction and development. It

also requires an integrated approach. To this end my

Government will set up a stability fund to tackle the

twin challenges of development and security. Because

development and security are closely linked, the

Millennium Development Goals should remain at the

centre of our policies. The Netherlands remains

committed to allocating 0.8 per cent of our gross domestic

product to development cooperation and I call on all

countries to implement their Monterrey commitments.

But development is not just a matter of aid, it will also

depend on liberalizing trade. I am disappointed that the

World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in

Cancún failed to produce results.

The legitimacy of the decisions of the Security

Council is questioned because the composition of the

Council no longer reflects today’s geopolitical realities.

However, expansion is not a solution in itself.

Effectiveness can easily fall victim to the quest for

legitimacy. Crucial to restored legitimacy is better

interaction between the members of the Council and

the United Nations membership at large. Members of

the Council should represent relevant and broad

sections of world opinion.

I agree with the Secretary-General that we need

to take a hard look at the existing architecture of

international institutions. Many other organizations I

know well, such as the OSCE, the European Union

16

(EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) (and I hope to get to know the last

organization even better in the near future), are in the

process of redefining their roles in drastically changed

circumstances. The United Nations cannot be left

behind. Interaction between the United Nations on the

one hand, and regional organizations such as the

OSCE, the EU and NATO on the other, is growing.

There is considerable scope for intensifying that

interaction, as is indeed foreseen in the Charter.

As the Italian Presidency of the European Union

illustrated in its intervention here some days ago, the

United Nations can count on the EU in the quest for

robust multilateralism. As a member State of the EU, the

Netherlands fully endorses the Presidency’s statement.

The EU’s new emphasis on countering the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction in its common foreign and

security policy is an example of how we want our

common efforts to be in the vanguard.

Let me now focus on the General Assembly. Take

the example of how we deal with the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict. Let us connect the General Assembly to

reality. Instead of dealing with 23 resolutions, should

we not try to find our strength in a more focused

central message, supported by all, a message that calls

upon both Israel and the Palestinians to put an end to

the bloodshed and violence and to immediately

implement the road map as the only viable way to long-

lasting peace? The EU will continue to do all it can,

together with its partners in the Quartet, to help

Palestinians and Israelis reach that destination. I hope

that this Assembly can contribute.

The Assembly should be made more effective. I

need not repeat what you all know about overlapping

or hardly relevant agenda items, repetitive debates and

resolutions and the prevalence of the lowest common

denominator. As a contribution to improvement, my

country tabled the Greentree report, the result of a

seminar involving representatives from a wide circle of

countries. The Greentree report aims at restoring the

General Assembly to its rightful place as the centre

stage for worldwide deliberations on our common

problems. We are certain that in that endeavour, we

will be able to count on the leadership and wisdom of

the President of the General Assembly.

My Government wholeheartedly supports the

decision of the Secretary-General to establish a panel

of eminent persons. We look forward to his

recommendations for next year’s session of the

Assembly. Meanwhile, we should not sit back and wait.

It is upon us Member States to engage now in the

debate on the pertinent reform questions the Secretary-

General has put to us.

In order to defuse the threats we face and to leave

a better world for future generations, we need to do

more than talk. We must act and we must act together.

We need clear rules and strong institutions —

institutions that ensure that the rules of the multilateral

game are respected, strengthened and enforced. We

need a multilateral system with teeth; we need a

multilateral system that works.