Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2005

It is my firm opinion that

we achieved important results at our summit. We

created a peacebuilding commission and agreed to

establish a human rights council. We have good

language on development, including unanimous

agreement on the Millennium Development Goals, and

we agreed on the responsibility to protect. We made

progress towards consensus on the fight against

terrorism and agreed on some essential management

and reform issues.

Some have expressed disappointment about the

results of the summit and, indeed, not all of our

ambitions were achieved. Does that imply that it is

wrong to be ambitious? Of course not. In a world

society of 191 Member States, we must accept that the

end result of negotiations will always reflect a

compromise between different ambitions, and that we

have to be tolerant of each other’s diverse views and

interests.

As regards my own country’s expectations, it is a

matter of concern that we did not agree on any

measures to counter the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction — one of the greatest threats to

humankind. We had also hoped for more specific

agreement on the modalities for the human rights

council and would have preferred clear parameters for

the use of force, as well as solid language on the

International Criminal Court. And the Netherlands

would have liked to give the Secretary-General more

scope to carry out his management responsibilities.

But all in all, we have made clear progress. So let

us now agree to remain ambitious, to move forward

with implementing the programme we have agreed, and

to allow the United Nations to deliver on our promises.

I look forward to the outline of work the President of

this Assembly has announced, and I fully support the

accountability pact with which the Secretary-General

has challenged us.

We have also achieved something else, something

less apparent but equally important. We have

reaffirmed our political and moral support for a

fundamental underlying principle, namely, that we

need to build bridges through dialogue and cooperation

and that we have to promote respect and tolerance. And

we all share the conviction that, in promoting respect

and tolerance across the globe, the United Nations has

a central role to play.

According to a well-known saying, there is only

one thing we cannot tolerate, and that is intolerance.

Indeed, the struggle to protect tolerance from

intolerance is one of the great challenges of our time.

It is in the interest of all States to take up the

fight against radical ideologies that turn people into

terrorists. Terrorism, as we all know, is a cross-border

threat. People of all persuasions and beliefs are its

innocent victims. And so we must respond collectively,

both to terrorism and to the radical ideologies that feed

and breed it. Rwanda and the wars in the former

Yugoslavia are sharp reminders of how the political use

of intolerant and racist rhetoric can even lead to

genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Still, I do not believe there is or will be a clash of

civilizations. But there is a clash between the tolerant

and the intolerant within and across our societies,

within and across our civilizations.

That is why it is now so important to take on the

radical ideologies that foster violent extremism.

Security Council resolution 1624 (2005), calling on all

States to prohibit, by law, incitement to commit a

terrorist act or acts, sends an important message to the

hate-mongers.

To fight an effective battle against violent

extremism and terrorism, we must strike a careful

balance between judicial and police measures, on the

one hand, and meaningful dialogue on the other. Let us

learn from each other in that respect. I believe that peer

review in the human rights council could, in future,

help us all to maintain that careful balance.

Let us invest in a global culture of tolerance and

mutual respect. We must not look at cultural, religious

and ideological differences as unbridgeable divides

separating adversaries. Instead, we should join forces

for a global society in which the quest for greater unity

goes hand in hand with respect for diversity.

22

The best way for societies to protect tolerance is

for them to treasure their identity and, at the same

time, dare to reassess the validity of their prevailing

norms and standards. Recent events in the Netherlands,

for example, have confronted our society with the

question of how to protect our centuries-old tradition

of tolerance from those who would abuse it to sow

hatred and division. That process of reflection is an

ongoing one, but part of the answer is to constantly

remind ourselves that it is wrong to hold an entire

community accountable for the deeds of individuals.

Let us all vow to protect tolerance from

intolerance. Let us invest in mutual respect and try to

change the mindset of those who propagate intolerance

and violent extremism. That will require permanent

dialogue, with a central role for the United Nations, the

only truly global platform we possess.

Serious dialogue can also help to clear up

misunderstandings. One of the most striking

misunderstandings concerns the nature of secularism,

by which I mean the separation of State and religious

institutions. That separation protects the freedom of all

citizens of all religious backgrounds, as well as of

people who do not practice any religion. In the

Netherlands, as elsewhere, politicians and political

parties may be inspired by religion, as long as the

institutions remain separate.

That is precisely why, in my country and across

the European continent, there is a place for Islam, just

as there is a place for other religions. There is a place

for any form of Islam that allows believers to be both

Muslims and citizens of a democratic society.

Citizenship means more than just holding a

passport. True citizenship calls for an active

contribution to the society of which one is a part. It

also calls for a society that is open to the many and

varied contributions of all its citizens. Radical

ideologies that push people to isolate themselves from

the rest of society and to reject or even attack the spirit

of democracy will run up against our determined

refusal to give even one inch, in my country and, I

hope, everywhere. For intolerance is a global, cross-

border phenomenon, which is why we so urgently need

the United Nations at our side.

United Nations reform will mean making good on

our promises. It will require determined

implementation of the plans and proposals we have

agreed on. If we are serious about our effort to build a

more humane, dignified and just world, United Nations

reform must also strengthen the protection of tolerance

from intolerance.

In our fast-changing world, people long for safety

and certainty, and that is understandable. But leaders

all over the world have a duty to explain that narrow

worldviews, with no place for differences, can offer no

genuine protection. Without respect for diversity, there

can be no unity.

If we want to protect tolerance from intolerance,

we should look critically at what we teach our children.

How can we expect them to become tolerant adults if

they learn in school to despise people of other faiths

and ethnicities? It is not enough for Governments to do

polite business with other Governments; they should,

at the same time, not allow hotbeds of intolerance to

exist in their societies.

There is an old saying that we reap what we sow.

If we wish to reap a harvest of tolerance and mutual

respect, and foster a sense of common purpose, then

we must set to work now. Let us begin sowing the

seeds of tolerance and mutual respect here at the

United Nations, the world’s main crossroads of

civilizations.