Romania, 1999

I am greatly pleased to extend

my warmest congratulations to our newly elected President

of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. Also,

I join previous speakers in expressing our debt of gratitude

to the outgoing President, Mr. Didier Opertti, for his able

stewardship of the proceedings of the Assembly during the

past session.

I welcome the newcomers to the United Nations

family, Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga.

It has not been an easy year for our Secretary-General.

We all appreciate his wisdom and sense of balance in

steering the reform process of the United Nations itself with

a firm hand at a time of profound change on the

international scene.

Whether we like it or not, globalization is upon us. A

satisfactory definition of the term may not be yet available,

but we all feel the effects of it: pervasive; subtle or less so;

disturbing; sometimes perverse; and, above all, challenging.

The end of a millennium and the advent of a new one

is a good time for reflection. It is not just coping with the

millennium bug, which may cause our computers to go

awry; it is — to use the Secretary General's well polished

phrase — a “symbolically compelling moment”. It is not

for me to answer the question of where we are and where

we are heading: the collective wisdom of the United

Nations Member States, assisted by academia and, we

hope, by civil society too, will take charge of that at the

millennium summit next year. I think we must take that

event seriously: although we may have a lot to celebrate,

we still have a lot more to do, earnestly, pragmatically

and effectively.

Like all good things, globalization produces

beneficial effects; then again, as happens with most good

things, those benefits are not evenly distributed: those

who are better equipped to face the challenge of going

global will reap its fruits sooner, while those who are not

will have to try harder. What I mean is that as we talk

about globalization we do not have to indulge ourselves

in slogans or idolatry: globalization involves great

benefits, but also great risks. We should not forget that

our century first experienced the dark side of

globalization: world war. Luckily, it is also

globalization — this time in its good sense — that can

make it impossible for conflicts to become chronic,

because the whole world instantly learns about any local

dispute and mobilizes all available energies to identify

and implement solutions.

The moral underpinning of globalization is called

solidarity. One could say that in its very structures and

goals the United Nations anticipated contemporary

globalization: the United Nations is all about

institutionalized solidarity, and to belong to this

Organization means making solidarity the norm of best

conduct. Social, political and economic solidarity;

cultural, inter-ethnic and regional solidarity; solidarity

born out of respect for values, and fostered by goodwill

and good faith — these are the ethics that we wish for the

forthcoming millennium.

It should be clear that the individual must

necessarily be the beneficiary of any form of solidarity:

international organizations, States and governments do not

acquire legitimacy and cannot be judged otherwise than

through their impact on individual destiny. The real man

or woman, rather than generic mankind, and the values

embodied by the human species, rather than self-serving

projects, are the true subjects of politics.

This way of thinking has lately brought up the issue

of humanitarian intervention, human rights and reform of

the system of international law. This is a sensitive issue

and one full of pitfalls. There are those who say that we

should not tolerate legal injustice under the pretext of

39

humanitarian intervention. That is true. Similarly, some say

that we should tolerate either social injustice nor crime

under the pretext of non-interference in domestic affairs.

Undoubtedly respect for human rights is primarily the

responsibility of national Governments and State

institutions. However, if they do not fulfil this task, there

should be an instrument capable of enforcing respect for

international standards and there is no better instrument for

doing so than the United Nations.

Preventing conflicts is a complex undertaking.

Unfortunately, we do not always have time to act subtly

and imaginatively. We are not doing enough in the field of

education in the sense of cultivating values of respect for

the integrity of the individual and for his or her right to be

different. We do not always understand in time that the

most efficient way to fight war and violence is to fight

poverty. We do not always know how to distinguish

between political manoeuvring and public interest, between

national pride and universally valid principles. We must

reflect on these things not only when crises are unleashed

but instantly calmly and clear-mindedly. There is no simple

way of coping with complexity. It requires vision,

enlightened foresight, careful planning and hard work.

The revolutionary changes of ten years ago in Central

and Eastern Europe and the ensuing process of transition

were essentially focused on values — political pluralism,

parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, individual

freedom, market economy and human rights, including the

rights of people belonging to ethnic, religious or other

minorities. Those values prevailed because they were right,

because they survived in our hearts and minds through

decades of totalitarian communist oppression, and because

they were embraced by the vast majority of people in our

countries.

But shared values themselves are not enough to build

a truly prosperous democratic society: they have to be

underpinned by an equally coherent set of institutions

designed to serve and actually implement those values. The

two — values and institutions — are inextricably linked in

a functioning democracy, and it is precisely from this

linkage that the indispensable ingredient for further progress

arises: leadership. That, in a nutshell, is the substance of

good governance. We are reminded here of the idea that:

“The important thing for government is not to do

things which individuals are doing already, and to do

them a little bit better or a little bit worse, but to do

those things which at present are not done at all.”

[John Maynard Keynes, “The End of Laissez-Faire”]

We in Romania, much like those in many other Central

and East European countries, have been and still are

learning that simple truth the hard way in a difficult and

sometimes painful process of transition.

It is in that spirit and in recognition of the

international dimension of good governance at a time of

global change that the Romanian delegation has submitted

a draft code of democratic conduct (A/54/178, annex) for

examination by the Assembly this session. The text before

the Assembly is the result of extensive consultations and

includes meaningful contributions from many quarters

based upon the original framework from the Conferences

of New or Restored Democracies. The important — and

I would say, novel — thing about this document is that,

in addition to listing principles and stating general aims,

it also spells out practical modalities for carrying them

out in the political, legal, administrative, economic and

social spheres. Last but not least, it emphasizes the crucial

role of non-institutional players — business communities,

unions, non-governmental organizations, civil society, the

media — in shaping policies and in building consensus

for implementation.

In a changing world, the world Organization itself is

also changing. The scope and pace of its reform and

adaptation to the new realities and requirements may have

been uneven, patchy in some respects and even

disappointing, but the process has gained momentum and

there are hopeful signs for steady progress in the future.

The United Nations is uniquely equipped by its structure

and acquired expertise to seek specific rather than

standard solutions to specific problems. Every crisis we

have had to face in recent years and months had a

physiognomy of its own. To be effective, the response

must match the challenge in terms of innovative

complexity.

In relation to the enlargement of the Security

Council membership and its improved performance, we

believe that proper consideration should be given to the

interests of all regional groups, including the Group of

Eastern European States, which has seen the most

spectacular rise in numbers over the past three decades.

Romania welcomed the initiative to create the United

Nations Stand-by Forces High-Readiness Brigade and

takes part in it. Recent events across the world have

demonstrated the urgent need to make it operational as

soon as possible. We have been reminded of this in a

most dramatic fashion by the recent events in East Timor.

Romanian contingents took part in several United

40

Nations-led and other peacekeeping, peace support and

policing operations and are further prepared to improve and

diversify their contribution to such activities.

Our cooperation with the United Nations agencies has

become better focused and more effective. I should like to

mention the importance we attach to the support of the

United Nations Development Programme in designing and

managing specific, high-priority projects for Romania,

notably in public administration, in the preparation of a

national strategy for sustainable development and of a local

Agenda 21 programme. Further useful work is expected to

be done jointly with the World Bank for the formulation of

a comprehensive development framework at both the

national and the regional level.

The Balkan tragedy has been in the headlines for the

whole of this past year. We all had an object lesson on the

harm that ethnic and religious intolerance compounded by

rabid nationalism can do to an entire region. As so many

times in history, it was the innocents that had to suffer

most, individuals and nations alike. But we have also

learned that determination and prompt action by the

international community can make a difference. It is

gratifying to note that trans-Atlantic solidarity again passed

a crucial test in these past few months. In fact, if we are

able to look into the future of the region with a reasonable

degree of optimism, it is because we have seen concerted

action at work.

The Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe is such

proof of a new, bold approach — a comprehensive, forward

looking programme which proposes to deal with the entire

region with specific action envisaged on three tiers:

international security, economic development and

democracy and institution-building. Romania has welcomed

the plan from the very beginning, is part of it and seriously

means to do its utmost to bring it to fruition. It is still

early, but three preliminary observations may be in order.

First, the actual participation of the countries in the

region and of its immediate neighbours, such as Romania,

is crucial for its success.

Secondly, in focusing on the eventual integration of

the region as a whole into the European and Atlantic

structures, the sequence and content of the steps to be taken

should realistically differentiate among the actual

requirements and capabilities of each participating country.

Thirdly, besides action at the governmental level, it is

vital to secure the active involvement of business interests

and the various organizational expressions of civil society

in order to give substance and continuity to the whole

process.

Almost as an afterthought, I think I should also

mention the need for a watchful eye on transparency,

applying equally to political decision-making and to

procurement procedures, including those practised by the

agencies of the United Nations family. This is a

legitimately sensitive subject for the countries of the

region, particularly for the companies registered there, and

ought to be duly considered as such.

Romania's commitment to its strategic goals of

European and Atlantic integration is steady and

unwavering. It has passed the acid test of the Kosovo

crisis. We are looking forward with confidence and hope

to the major decisions which are due to be taken before

the year's end and thereafter.

The United Nations may not be perfect, but is

perfectible and, after all, is the only world forum

available. It is up to us to make it live and deliver. We,

the Member States, have to deliver in order to live in a

peaceful world. For this I hope and pray.