Singapore, 1994

First, it gives me great

pleasure to congratulate the President on his unanimous

election. Like other colleagues who have preceded me,

I am confident that he will guide us through this session

effectively. Allow me also to place on record our

appreciation for his predecessor, Ambassador Insanally,

who presided over a very hectic and productive session.

The end of the cold war has not led us to the end of

conflicts. Instead, it has given rise to many internecine,

intra-State ethnic and religious conflicts, bringing

destruction, chaos and suffering in their wake. With the

major Powers preoccupied with their domestic economic,

political, social and other problems, the world has had no

choice but to turn to the United Nations for help. Firstly,

there is no alternative. Secondly, there is the expectation

that, freed of the past super-Power rivalry that had

immobilized the United Nations, the United Nations will

now be able to fulfil the aims of its founding fathers to

create a better world.

In the last few years, with these demands for United

Nations action increasing manifold, the United Nations

has had to grapple simultaneously with many trouble

spots around the world. In its first 42 years of existence

until 1988, the United Nations launched only 13 peace-

keeping operations. But in the short space of the last six

to seven years, it has seen 21 peace-keeping operations.

Peace-keeping expenditures have also risen dramatically

from the 1986 figure of about $350 million to $3.4 billion

projected for 1994.

International relations have for a long time been

conducted in an inter-State system, with the overriding

principle being respect of the sovereignty of independent

nations. The main focus of the United Nations Charter

14

was and is on how the international community can respond

to threats to peace and security issues between

nation-States, as opposed to crises within a State. The

world community and the United Nations in particular have

relatively little experience to draw upon in managing

intra-State conflicts and intra-State peace-keeping. The

dilemmas faced by the Security Council in dealing with

Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Rwanda, just to name a few,

demonstrate that the United Nations is still evolving its

approach on how to respond to these challenges.

These new challenges of dealing with intra-State

conflicts, it would appear, will continue to be with us. The

1994 United Nations Development Programme report on the

Human Development Index indicates that 79 of the 82

global military conflicts since 1991 were intra-State in

nature. Can the United Nations, which represents the

world’s conscience, avoid getting involved in such

conflicts? On the one hand, the United Nations is criticized

for not intervening in Rwanda in the earlier stages of the

civil war. It is argued that if it had, we could have avoided

the immense humanitarian disaster we now see in that

country. On the other hand, others maintain that the United

Nations is not ready to shoulder the implied responsibility,

after getting involved in intra-State conflicts, of nursing a

country back to the political stability and economic health

which is, of course, necessary to prevent a repetition of

famine, chaos and other troubles.

Member States are coming round to recognizing that

there are political, financial and institutional limitations to

the United Nations. We cannot realistically expect the

United Nations to resolve all forms of civil wars within

national boundaries. For now, we have reverted to the

more onerous but perhaps sensible approach of responding

to situations on a case by case basis. Inevitably, however,

the United Nations will need to establish guidelines and

criteria, either formal or otherwise, to decide where United

Nations involvement will be necessary and when it will be

effective.

The Security Council already appears to have taken

steps in this direction. In a May 1994 statement, it agreed

that the existence of a threat to international peace and

security, and of a clear political goal reflected in a precise

mandate, are factors which should be considered when

establishing new peace-keeping operations. Other factors

should include, inter alia, whether a cease-fire exists and

whether the parties have committed themselves to a peace

process intended to reach a political settlement.

Significantly, the Security Council also asked that it be

informed of the likely availability of resources for the new

operations. These are but preliminary guidelines. It will

be necessary to build upon, refine and modify them to

best meet the evolving peace and security challenges of

this new era.

In many cases of intra-State conflicts, it is probably

more effective to address the underlying causes of conflict

and provide a foundation for socio-economic

development. The root causes of many conflicts are

socio-economic: the distribution of scarce resources and

the lack of development. Hence, we may do better to

concentrate on development aid, education, good

governance and basic infrastructure-building to lay the

building-blocks to create a civil society. Where

appropriate, these measures should be accompanied and

supplemented by preventive diplomacy. Peace-keeping

operations are a palliative, not a substitute for solving the

root causes of conflicts.

At a time when the United Nations is called upon to

undertake and adapt to new and complex leadership roles

in international peace and security, the persistent financial

problems faced by our Organization have clearly to be

addressed and overcome. The crucial point is that, having

decided to launch a peace-keeping operation, Member

States cannot allow it to fail, especially owing to lack of

resources. The very credibility of our Organization would

be questioned if we were to mandate the United Nations

to take on new peace-keeping operations, and then watch

them falter and fail because Member States are unwilling

or unable to provide the requisite resources.

Unfortunately, the Secretary-General had to again

warn the Presidents of the Security Council and the

General Assembly in July this year of the dire financial

situation of the United Nations, especially in peace-

keeping. Unless we do something, these warnings will be

repeated year after year. With the many multidimensional

challenges facing the United Nations in the post-cold-war

era, it is difficult to envisage how the United Nations will

be able to carry out its functions effectively if it has to

live from hand to mouth in this manner. It is time

Member States seriously addressed the issue of financial

resources and tackled it firmly once and for all.

There is only one solution to the financial crisis of

the United Nations: Member States must pay their

assessments in full and on time. Without our payments,

the United Nations simply cannot function.

Many Member States have failed to honour the legal

and binding obligations that require them to pay their

15

assessments in full and on time. Obligatory and legitimate

payments are unconditional and incumbent on all Member

States. In fact, individual Member States have no reason

to withhold or threaten to withhold contributions to the

United Nations, as each Member State has the opportunity

to present and argue its case for or against any United

Nations activity. Each Member State also has the chance

to scrutinize the budgetary implications of each decision

and consequently to negotiate a consensus with other

Member States as is the practice for all budgetary matters.

But this is by now a tired mantra. In order to

encourage timely payments, Member States should consider

proposals already being discussed in United Nations circles,

such as a system of charging interest on late payments,

though with due consideration for the difficult situations of

the least developed countries. We would also like to

suggest that Member States use the symbolic event of the

fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations to clear their

arrears and start with a clean slate financially. Member

States could undertake a joint commitment to pay up all

their outstanding contributions to the United Nations before

this symbolic day in 1995.

The Security Council has a particularly critical role in

the United Nations. The Charter confers upon it the

primary responsibility for the maintenance of international

peace and security. As spelt out in the Charter, the

membership dues of a State Member of the United Nations

are one of the few and most basic of the obligations of

United Nations membership. Now, if a permanent member

of the Security Council cannot even meet this basic

obligation, how can it meet the heavy and serious

responsibility of maintaining international peace and

security on behalf of all Member States? We must

establish the principle that the permanent members of the

Security Council, with their privileged positions, should not

be in arrears. They should in fact set an example for the

rest of the United Nations membership in meeting their

financial obligations. For the same reason, permanent

members must continue to bear special responsibilities in

the financing of peace-keeping.

I hope Member States will consider our proposals

seriously. I believe these proposals can lead to concrete

results in improving the financial situation of the United

Nations and even lay the basis for the United Nations better

to manage the difficult challenges of this new era.

Singapore is fully committed to working together with the

Secretary-General and Member States to resolve the

financial crisis of the United Nations.

It is expected that, with the rising costs for peace-

keeping operations, one of the most heated arguments in

the years ahead will be the apportionment of peace-

keeping expenses among Member States. Singapore will

strive, together with other Member States, to work out

objective political and economic criteria for improving the

scale. It is clear that any ad hoc, arbitrary or voluntary

measures in this regard will have little chance of success

given the fact that this is a highly sensitive issue. There

must be a process of debate and discussion, however

protracted it may be, before we can arrive at a consensus

on a new scale. Singapore, for its part, is ready to pay

more in peace-keeping expenses provided, first, that this

is the outcome of an overall reform of the peace-keeping

scale and, secondly, that the problem of those who are in

arrears is seriously addressed.

We have come a long way since the founding of the

United Nations 49 years ago. It is now time for us to

rededicate ourselves to the goal of creating a better world,

as envisaged by our Charter. What better time than now,

on the eve of our fiftieth anniversary, for us to place the

United Nations on a sound financial footing and lay the

foundation for it to embark on its programmes and

activities for the next 50 years?