Liechtenstein, 2013

At the outset, let me

convey the sincere condolences of the people and the

Government of Liechtenstein to all those affected by

the abhorrent terrorist attack in Kenya. Our thoughts

are with the victims and their families.

For the second year in a row, the Assembly is

meeting under the shadow of the crisis in Syria. It is the

challenge of our time. No other situation in the recent

past has so dramatically tested the United Nations

ability to respond. And none has so starkly illustrated

the limitations and the weaknesses of our multilateral

system. Thousands of people have been killed in a

brutal war, many of them women and children, and

many of them victims of war crimes and crimes against

humanity. Regional stability has been eroded. Millions

of people are depending on humanitarian assistance,

which is often impossible to deliver. Humanitarian

access to those most in need, including the sick and

the wounded, is being systematically denied owing

to cynical political calculations. The humanitarian

agencies have become a pawn in that perverted game.

Sadly, it took a particularly outrageous act to

generate action in the Security Council: the use of

chemical weapons, with hundreds of victims, including

countless children. We are encouraged to see that the

Council has decided to ensure the destruction of all

chemical weapons in Syria. That should also provide

new momentum to ensure that all remaining States join

the Chemical Weapons Convention. Indeed, it should

be a step towards the elimination of all weapons of

mass destruction worldwide.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria has marked a

watershed in the conflict. Nevertheless, that issue must

not divert our attention away from the core problem:

the fighting in Syria continues unabated, with blatant

disregard for the civilian population and international

humanitarian law. Weapons and ammunition cross the

borders more easily than humanitarian assistance.

The recent breakthrough on the issue of chemical

weapons shows that political progress is possible.

Hopefully, that will create the momentum for the

Council to finally live up to its responsibility: to end

the supply of weapons, pressure the parties to the

conflict to accept a ceasefire, work towards a political

solution and prepare the ground for accountability for

past crimes. There may be different views on who used

chemical weapons in Syria, but everyone agrees that

that use constitutes a crime against humanity and a war

crime that must not go unpunished. It must therefore be

put before a court of law, together with the countless

other crimes committed, for an independent and

impartial investigation.

Syria is our biggest collective failure with regard

to accountability in recent history. The International

Criminal Court (ICC) has been operational for more

than a decade now. During that time, we have not

witnessed any other situation in which crimes have

been committed so systematically, on such a scale and

for such a long time without any adequate response

from the international community.

It is well documented that crimes have been and

continue to be committed by all sides. That is precisely

the type of crisis for which we established the ICC, and

it is precisely the type of situation that led us to give

the Security Council the competence to refer situations

to the Court. In its recent resolution 2118 (2013), the

Council made a limited statement on accountability.

More determined and more concrete action must follow.

A referral to the ICC will ultimately also contribute

to a viable political future for the country, create

accountability for those crimes, provide redress for the

victims and establish the truth.

The establishment of the International Criminal

Court has been the most significant development

in international law for decades. Only the adoption

of the Arms Trade Treaty earlier this year has come

even close in terms of significance. With 122 States

parties, the Court has attracted a strong following. But

the emergence of an effective international judicial

mechanism also poses challenges. We have mandated

the Court to investigate and prosecute the most serious

crimes under international law. And we have asked it

to focus on those perpetrators who bear the greatest

responsibility. Therefore, it cannot be surprising to

anyone that the Court is dealing with individuals in

leadership positions. We are satisfied that the Court

follows the evidence, and that it does not shy away

from investigating and prosecuting those in powerful

positions. It is therefore implementing its mandate and

not politicizing the work it does.

Recent events in Syria have reminded us of the

importance of the amendments to the Rome Statute

adopted in Kampala in 2010. We added provisions

that criminalize the use of poisonous and other gases,

whether they are used in international or in internal

armed conflict. It is troubling that those provisions

have become relevant so quickly. But the biggest steps

forward are amendments to crimes of aggression. They

complement the prohibition of the illegal use of force

enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The

most serious forms of the illegal use of force by one

State against another will become a punishable offence

before the ICC. The Court will thereby help enforce

the core principle of the rule of law at the international

level. With ratifications by Andorra, Cyprus, Slovenia

and Uruguay earlier this week, we have come a

significant step closer to our common goal, namely,

the activation of the Court’s policy over crimes of

aggression in 2017. Liechtenstein was the first country

to ratify the amendments, and we will continue to assist

in the ratification process.

Liechtenstein firmly believes in the responsibility

to protect populations from crimes of atrocity. Clearly,

we have much work left to do in order to put that

norm into practice. Our inability to respond to the

crisis in Syria demonstrates a crucial weakness in the

system: the use of the veto, or its threat, in a manner

incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations.

That can make the Security Council irrelevant when it

is most urgently needed. During this general debate,

the President of France suggested a common code of

conduct for Permanent Members of the Security Council

(see A/68/PV.5). We strongly agree with that proposal.

All five permanent members should be able to give the

world one public commitment, that is, that they will

not use their veto to block action aimed at ending or

preventing crimes of atrocity. That would be crucial to

enhancing the Council’s effectiveness and credibility.

Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the point where

we are able to bring the composition of the Security

Council in line with the geopolitical realities of the

twenty-first century. But the Council is also struggling

to adjust its working methods to new challenges in order

to better include the perspective of non-members in its

decisions, which is a crucial ingredient for effective

leadership. We will therefore continue our efforts to

promote accountability and transparency in the work

of the Council.

The rule of law and accountability have made

steady progress in the work of the United Nations.

Nevertheless, that progress remains abstract for

countless individuals who are vulnerable to atrocities.

Sexual violence in conflict has become a rampant

phenomenon, with women and girls at particular risk of

becoming victims. The ICC has made the fight against

that scourge a priority. Most important, though, we

must do our part as States. Liechtenstein fully supports

the United Kingdom’s initiative to take greater action

to end sexual violence during conflict. The fight

against sexual violence must also play a central role

in the larger context of the women, peace and security

agenda. All of that requires stronger emphasis on the

need to empower women. Many of our stated goals,

from sustainable development to lasting peace, require

the full participation of women. Otherwise, they are

simply not attainable. In that regard, I am grateful for

the leadership of the Secretary-General. We should all

rally behind his call to make the twenty-first century

the century for women.

The upcoming negotiations on the post-2015 agenda

will be a crucial test of our ability to tackle challenges

that will define the lives of future generations. We look

forward to the leadership of the President of the General

Assembly in that process. It is of course too early to

offer a final assessment of the Millennium Development

Goals. But we know that important unfinished business

will be carried over into the sustainable development

goals. Those new goals must be much more than just an

extension of past efforts. They must aim at eradicating

poverty and hunger once and for all, and finally ensure

full equality between men and women. They must

therefore be firmly rooted in human rights, respect for

the rule of law and principles of good governance. The

sustainable development goals will ensure sustainability

only if they approach development in a holistic way.

Most important, once we have agreed on our new goals,

we need to become more serious in our commitment to

achieving them. Let us therefore develop and apply an

effective monitoring mechanism to show the world that

we are indeed serious.

The post-2015 process will also be decisive in

moving the General Assembly back to the centre of

multilateral policy-making. Only the “G-193” provides

the legitimacy and universality required for decisions

of global impact and for setting standards that apply to

all. This is our General Assembly. Let us use it.