Liechtenstein, 2011

It is a great honour to

again address this Assembly, especially at the first

general debate ever opened by a woman. What an

inspiration! This debate has already proven that the

General Assembly can indeed play a central role in

multilateral diplomacy, in particular at this time of

great change and turmoil.

I would like to express the solidarity of my

country, Liechtenstein, with all of the peoples of the

world that have, in recent months, sought to attain

freedom from oppression and tyranny. We admire the

courage of all of those women and men, young and old,

who have stood up for their rights, often at great

personal risk. We, the United Nations, must stand by

them. I also wish to welcome South Sudan as the

193rd State Member of the Organization. The United

Nations has yet again proven its ability to settle

complex and violent conflicts by peaceful means.

The developments in northern Africa and the

Middle East may have roots mainly in the lack of

connections between Governments and their people.

While they may be primarily internal in nature, there is

also an international dimension to the rapid changes we

are witnessing. The events since February have put the

Organization itself to the test, and more challenges can

be expected to occur.

In recent years we have sharpened tools and

concepts that are essential in helping us solve or

prevent conflicts. So how did we apply them during

these challenging times?

First, how well did we carry out our commitment

to protect civilians? The United Nations has made

much progress in developing the concept of the

responsibility to protect. The concept has three pillars:

in the first instance, the primary responsibility of the

State concerned, and then the second pillar, according

to which other States have a responsibility to assist in

the protection of civilians. In two recent instances,

however, the international community has had to act

under the last and third pillar. We commend the

Security Council for taking swift action to protect

civilians in Libya and in Côte d’Ivoire. In both

instances, the Council authorized the use of force only

as a last resort, but also without undue delay.

Some have criticized the actions taken and argued

that they were aimed at regime change. Let us not

forget, however, that the regimes in question had a

11-51398 2

choice. It was they who chose to attack civilians. It was

they who forced the international community to act. At

the same time, we sympathize with those who

perceived a selective application of the responsibility

to protect. As the stalemate in the Security Council on

Syria showed, politics continues, at times, to trump

principle. In response, however, we need more

principled action, not more politics.

Secondly, have we lived up to our promise to

ensure accountability for the worst crimes? Have we

lived up to the promise of “Never again!”, which we

gave in the aftermath of Rwanda and Srebrenica? Once

more, the international response to crimes committed

in Libya has provided a glimmer of hope. The Security

Council’s unanimous referral of the Libya situation to

the International Criminal Court (ICC) was a historic

decision. The ICC responded appropriately with swift

action. Furthermore, the Court is also undertaking

preliminary investigations regarding Côte d’Ivoire. The

central role played by the Court in those situations and

in many others has illustrated the profound paradigm

shift brought about by the Rome Statute.

The core principle of that shift is now firmly

entrenched in the fabric of international law: there

must be accountability for genocide, war crimes and

crimes against humanity. But accountability has not yet

arrived everywhere that it is needed. Serious

allegations of crimes committed in Sri Lanka and in

Syria, for instance, have not yet found an appropriate

and transparent justice mechanism. Again, the primary

responsibility to ensure an end to impunity falls on the

States concerned. International mechanisms, such as

the ICC, can and must only become active where States

fail to live up to their responsibilities.

Thirdly, how effective have we been in using

mediation as a tool in the peaceful settlement of

disputes? This topic, which was rightfully chosen as

the central theme of the presidency, is at the very heart

of the Organization’s mandate. We support the

Secretary-General’s call to raise prevention from an

abstract concept to a core operating principle. It is

simply paradoxical that only a small fraction of the

Secretariat’s resources is dedicated to mediation, while

we spend $7 billion per year on peacekeeping.

In many situations, the good offices provided by

neutral and trusted actors, such as envoys of the

Secretary-General, can make a real difference on the

ground. Such actions involve highly intense, often

heroic efforts, which deserve much stronger support

from us as Member States. Mediation efforts are

increasingly influenced by accountability mechanisms.

The General Assembly itself acknowledged this fact in

its first ever resolution on strengthening mediation,

where it emphasized, that “justice is a fundamental

building block of sustainable peace” (resolution

65/283, thirteenth preambular paragraph).

In this new age of accountability, mediators can

never offer amnesty from criminal prosecution or

withdraw arrest warrants issued by the ICC. That is not

only a matter of principle, but a matter of law. The ICC

would never be bound by such promises. At times, the

imperatives of peace and justice may compete with

each other temporarily and make the mediator’s job

more difficult. Over the long run, however, they are not

only compatible, but mutually reinforcing. That

message is sent around the globe upon each ratification

of the Rome Statute. And we are particularly happy to

note that the message has been sent 118 times so far,

most recently by the Philippines and the Maldives.

Fourthly, have we done enough to include women

in efforts at conflict prevention and resolution and to

make them agents of change, instead of bystanders?

Have we done enough to protect them during conflict,

in particular, from sexual violence? We have

collectively sent strong signals in this regard.

Liechtenstein particularly supports the Security

Council’s work on women, peace and security. We

welcome the new focus on the role of women brought

about by the creation of UN-Women. Women have

been a driving force in the Arab Spring. But as some

countries transition to a new era, women risk being left

behind once again.

The United Nations is often involved in

transitional processes. It must ensure a strong role for

women and apply a gender perspective. Most

important, the United Nations must lead by example

and appoint more women as leaders in mediation and

other transitional processes. It was therefore with great

pleasure that I signed the joint statement on advancing

women’s political participation, earlier today.

Regarding the protection of women and girls

from sexual violence, we place high hopes in the new

monitoring and reporting mechanism. Expert teams

will help strengthen domestic accountability

mechanisms. The greatest responsibility, however, lies

with peacekeepers on the ground. They are mandated

3 11-51398

to go into harm’s way and protect civilians. They must

fulfil that mandate even more effectively when faced

with situations of sexual violence. Most important

though, we must once and for all eradicate all instances

of sexual abuse committed by peacekeepers

themselves. It is not enough to simply repatriate Blue

Helmet soldiers who have committed such crimes. Zero

tolerance for sexual abuse must finally become a

reality.

Fifthly, have we done enough to address the root

causes of the unrest in many countries, including

poverty, unemployment, corruption, lack of freedom

and human rights? Those root causes and the strong

popular opposition against them, remind us of a simple

truth: economic and social development are

inextricably linked with good governance, human

rights and the rule of law.

The international community has many tools at

its disposal to assist countries in reforming their

systems of governance. We strongly support United

Nations activities to promote the rule of law and

combat corruption and make financial contributions to

that end. There is no shortage of assistance and

capacity-building programmes. What is needed is

greater political will to actually make use of them. It is,

however, the task of the United Nations to improve the

manner in which rule-of-law assistance programmes

are delivered and coordinated. We would welcome a

stronger role for the Rule of Law Coordination and

Resource Group in this regard, and hope that progress

can be made at next year’s high-level meeting on the

rule of law.

The events of recent months have shown us once

again how irresistible the call for freedom can be. And

they have shown us, once more, how indispensable the

Organization is when it comes to assisting peoples that

aspire to such freedom through democracy. Despite all

the criticism, I am convinced that the United Nations

has in recent years become more effective in delivering

on its mandate. If we work together here, we will

achieve results much more efficiently than through

individual actions. Great opportunities lie ahead of

us — let us accept the challenge.