New Zealand, 1996

It gives me particular

pleasure to address the General Assembly at a session of

over which Malaysia has been elected to preside. Our two

countries are good friends, and Ambassador Razali is

personally known to and respected by us all. New Zealand

looks forward to a productive session under his leadership.

In just two weeks New Zealanders face a general

election. There are many subjects over which the various

political parties differ, but one thing remains quite clear: the

support of New Zealanders for the United Nations and the

rule of international law embodied in it.

For New Zealand, as for many other countries

represented here today — and especially smaller

countries — the primary purpose of the United Nations

remains to provide for a system of collective security. It

brings the nations of the world together in a grand coalition

to keep the peace, to help eliminate weapons of mass

destruction, to uphold human rights, to encourage good

governance, to protect the environment and to promote

economic and social development, including by

supporting the role of women.

Together, these activities, along with national and

regional initiatives, provide the underpinnings of the

system of collective security that we want to leave for our

children.

For New Zealanders, our confidence in the United

Nations was reaffirmed when, two weeks ago, the General

Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban

Treaty. It gave me much satisfaction to sign the Treaty

earlier today on behalf of the Government and the people

of New Zealand. Agreement on a test ban has been a

New Zealand objective for more than three decades and

one we promoted in this Assembly, together with

Australia and Mexico. It reflects deeply held convictions

on the part of all New Zealanders.

New Zealand has argued, and will continue to argue,

for a world without nuclear weapons. Our belief that

these weapons of mass destruction can and should be

eliminated has been reinforced by the experiences of our

region as a testing ground for nuclear weapons. I am glad

to say it is an era now happily behind us.

For New Zealand, the Treaty represents first of all

an end to nuclear testing in our region and worldwide.

But even more, it puts real obstacles in the way of any

State seeking to refine or develop a nuclear arsenal. We

have taken a significant step on the way to eliminating

nuclear weapons entirely. Now, however, we must look

ahead.

The International Court of Justice, in its recent

Advisory Opinion on the legality of the use or threat of use

of nuclear weapons, set out our obligation in this regard:

the obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a

conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

New Zealand believes that in 1997 all States, including

nuclear-weapon States, should pursue negotiations on a

phased programme of nuclear disarmament, with the

ultimate goals of the complete elimination of nuclear

weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament

under strict and effective international control.

We are better placed to make our contribution to such

negotiations because of the recent decision of the

Conference on Disarmament to admit New Zealand and 22

other countries as full members. As a reflection of the

importance we attach to its ongoing work, my Government

has now decided to appoint a full-time Disarmament

Ambassador to the Conference in Geneva.

Further steps towards a nuclear-free world are

recommended in the report of the Canberra Commission on

the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, released last month.

We hope that report will energize discussions at the

national level, particularly in the nuclear-weapon States.

The aspirations of many States to be free of nuclear

weapons have found expression in the establishment of

what are now four nuclear-weapon-free zones. Taken

together, the four relevant treaties have the potential to

cover some 114 nations and 1.7 billion people. My

Government has given considerable thought to ways in

which cooperation between nuclear-weapon-free zones can

be advanced. We are working with other Governments on

a draft resolution to be submitted to the Assembly at this

session, and New Zealand hopes it will receive wide

support.

The disarmament arena is only one where the United

Nations must continue to address serious challenges to our

collective security. When my Government took office in

October 1990, the international community faced the

challenge presented by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In the

heart of Europe, Yugoslavia was on the path to political

disintegration. Few of us imagined then, however, the

nightmare of Bosnia, the genocide to come in Rwanda or

the mass starvation and anarchy in Somalia. In response,

during our term on the Security Council in 1993 and 1994,

a record 75,000 United Nations peacekeepers were

deployed around the world, and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait

was robustly countered by coalition action authorized by

the Security Council. New Zealand was part of that

coalition and is part of the current efforts to ensure that

Iraq complies with subsequent Council decisions. Recent

events show that we still need to be vigilant. Iraq must

recognize that there are limits to what the international

community will tolerate.

New Zealanders also serve in the former Yugoslavia

where, while the implementation of the Dayton accords

lies primarily with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO), the United Nations continues to play an

important role. Similarly, our personnel serve in Angola

and the Middle East.

New Zealanders are staunch supporters of the United

Nations role in international peacekeeping, despite the fact

that the overall record through the first half of this decade

has been mixed. There were successes, such as Cambodia,

Mozambique and El Salvador, and there were the

disappointments and bitter frustrations of Bosnia, Somalia

and Rwanda. I hesitate to call those operations failures.

To me, that would be to overlook the positive things they

achieved in extremely difficult circumstances and the

contributions made by so many dedicated and able people.

Those operations will be failures only if we fail to learn

from them. I think we have learned.

We have learned that, first, the United Nations must

be given the resources required to do the job. Secondly,

the Organization must be careful about mixing

enforcement tasks with peacekeeping, unless our

peacekeepers are appropriately configured from the outset

for the higher level of threat.

Thirdly, the Security Council should be wary of

adopting resolutions to which the Organization cannot

give effect. This creates a very corrosive credibility

problem.

My Government also considers that the United

Nations must continue its efforts to develop a capacity to

respond more rapidly. We commend the proposal to

establish a rapidly deployable operational headquarters

team and, indeed, have offered to contribute a highly

experienced officer to it.

Demining remains an important focus for New

Zealand. Mines pose an unacceptable threat to

peacekeeping operations and are a longer-term

2

humanitarian and development challenge. The United

Nations must make every effort to ensure that the necessary

resources are available for demining activities.

We have more than doubled our annual instalment to

the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in

Mine Clearance. This is in addition to our continuing

contribution of expertise in demining in Cambodia,

Mozambique and Angola, as well as here at United Nations

Headquarters.

Finally, we do not think the United Nations can write

itself out of the script when operations involving a potential

enforcement dimension are contemplated. If it did so, it

could quickly become irrelevant. The threats to international

peace and security in the future are likely to be every bit as

difficult as those of the recent past. The United Nations will

need to be able to respond effectively, not simply as a

rubber stamp for great-Power actions.

The tragic events of recent days in the West Bank and

Gaza show that peace there remains elusive. New Zealand

calls upon all parties to desist from actions that might derail

the Middle East peace process. Painstaking efforts have

gone into that process, and it offers a real hope for a long-

term solution to the problems that have bedeviled that

region. It must be supported and not jeopardized.

Human rights are the foundation of freedom and

justice, and the achievement of universal respect for human

rights is an essential prerequisite for international peace and

security.

In New Zealand we work hard to ensure that our own

house is in order. We are committed to ensuring that the

rights elaborated in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, the Covenants and other core human rights

instruments are a living reality for all New Zealanders, and

we are prepared to speak out when we see human rights

being violated in other parts of the world. At its heart, our

international human rights policy is geared to finding

tangible ways of protecting and promoting human rights

and good government.

In the Asia-Pacific region we are pleased by the

progress the United Nations is making in nurturing human

rights frameworks. We are also encouraged by the new

levels of cooperation and interaction being achieved by the

human rights commissions of the region.

New Zealand also sees a need to support individual

countries, international and regional organizations and non-

governmental organizations in their work to improve

human rights and the quality of governance. To this end

the Minister for Foreign Affairs has today announced the

establishment of an international good-government

programme. This new programme will markedly expand

our ability to support good government and human rights

capacity-building activities. It will work in tandem with

the existing Commonwealth Good Government Fund.

Consistent with United Nations principles, New

Zealand has also participated actively in the Action Group

of Commonwealth Ministers for the promotion of

principles of good governance established at the

Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Harare

in 1991 and reaffirmed at its Auckland meeting in 1995.

For my own part, I have been privileged to represent New

Zealand at several of the Action Group’s meetings and

during its recent mission to Gambia.

Such programmes, with the interlinked goals of

social progress and economic development, do not come

cheaply. The money spent on United Nations relief and

development greatly surpasses that spent on peacekeeping,

and so it should.

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 it

was recognized that substantial new and additional

funding would be required for sustainable development

and the implementation of Agenda 21, the programme of

action that will take us into the next century.

I am pleased to be able to say that by next year New

Zealand will have increased its official development

assistance by almost one third since Rio. There will be a

24 per cent increase in our funding for United Nations

development agencies this year.

1997 will see the five-year review of Agenda 21. At

the special session of the General Assembly next June,

one important task will be to assess the effectiveness of

the bodies and institutions that have been established to

advance the aims set out in Agenda 21. The issues are

many, and all are important. But we need to focus efforts

and produce real results.

In this regard, the Commission on Sustainable

Development should have a strengthened role. It should

be the forum in which States can work to streamline the

environment-and-sustainable- development agenda.

All these challenges facing this unique Organization,

and our regard for it, highlight of course the urgent need

3

for reform. In particular, the Security Council must be

made more representative of the Organization’s membership

as it is today, not as it was 50 years ago. Its decision-

making procedures must be brought up to date.

Finding a sustainable basis for the financing of the

Organization remains long overdue. New Zealand has

dedicated itself to reform of both the Secretariat and the

intergovernmental machinery, not least through our

vigorous commitment to the work of the Open-ended High-

level Working Group on the Strengthening of the United

Nations System. The report of that group provides a

blueprint for action during this session. We also support the

Efficiency Board, and have made available to it the services

of a New Zealand expert in public-service restructuring.

We believe that New Zealand’s record, not only as a

prompt contributor of assessments, but also as a country

that has demonstrated its commitment to financial reform,

places it in a good position to make an effective

contribution to the work of the Advisory Committee on

Administrative and Budgetary Questions, in which we are

seeking membership at this year’s session of the General

Assembly.

The drive for reform of the United Nations system to

make it an effective instrument of the international

community for the next 50 years means no part of it can

remain immune from scrutiny.

A good deal of attention has been focused on the

Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat.

We believe there is also scope for increasing the

effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. It is 50

years since the ICJ was established as the principal United

Nations judicial organ. To mark this important milestone in

the international rule of law, we should now finally

schedule a conference to adopt the statute for the

international criminal court. The creation of a permanent

court that will bring justice to victims of genocide, crimes

against humanity, war crimes and other serious international

crimes is surely a priority for us all.

I am grateful to have had this opportunity to reaffirm

New Zealand’s commitment to this Organization, and to

multilateralism, as the means for building a better world.